| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 12:28:22 +0200 From: Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com> To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] MTD jedec_probe: Recognize Atmel AT49BV6416 On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:06:19 +0800 David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 10:52 +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > > It is actually a CFI chip. But I couldn't figure out how to install > > the fixup in the other patch in the CFI code. The AT49BV6416 chip > > identifies itself as using the AMD command set, so the fixup must be > > installed based on the jedec ID... > > Er, note that the _correct_ answer is to advertise the availability of > the lock functionality in the CFI 'extended query' information. Did > the hardware designer screw that up? Hmmm...it looks like the information is there, but the PRI page looks different than the one defined by the kernel. Which could make sense, depending on whether "vendor specific" refers to the JEDEC vendor ID of the device or the command set ID. I'll try to ask someone from the Atmel flash group about this. Anyway, I could of course add a fixup based on manufacturer ID and convert the PRI information into something the kernel understands. Would that be a better idea? Haavard - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists