linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][Fix] New Unified AVR32/AT91 MCI Driver that supports both MCI slots used at the same time

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:03:50 +0200
From:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
To:	Rob Emanuele <poorarm@...reis.com>,
	Andrew Victor <avictor.za@...il.com>
CC:	Haavard Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com>,
	Joey Oravec <joravec@...wtech.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, drzeus-mmc@...eus.cx
Subject: Re: [PATCH][Fix] New Unified AVR32/AT91 MCI Driver that supports
 both 	MCI slots used at the same time

Rob Emanuele :
> Hi Haavard,
> 
>>> As with the at91 port I had of this driver, I had to add more flags to
>>> the ATMCI_DATA_ERROR_FLAGS as other communication errors were
>>> occurring and they were not be reported back.  Can anyone add more
>>> insight into this?
>> Adding them to the data error bits doesn't sound like the right thing
>> to do...but I guess there might be some sort of timing issue in there
>> where we think we're done sending the command but the controller may
>> still raise errors.
>>
>>> Again, anyone who can, please test (on either or both the AT91 and
>>> AVR32) and comment.
>> I haven't looked very closely at it yet, but I spotted a few things
>> which might prevent the patch from being accepted as-is:
>>  - I'm not sure if adding "unified" (or "now supports AT91") all over
>>    the place is the right thing to do. If the driver is selectable
>>    when you configure for AT91, it should obviously work on AT91.
> 
> Well, what is the best way to differentiate it from the at91_mci
> driver and keep users from trying to use both drivers?

I propose that we setup a kind of choice sub menu in the Kconfig for
those two drivers when they are both supported.

[..]

>>  - The AT91 platform parts should be separated from the rest since it
>>    may need to go through a different maintainer.
> 
> Who would that be as I haven't seen anyone who maintains any of those
> boards other than the at91rm8200 (at least nothing listed in the
> MAINTAINERS file)?  The board-sam9g20ek.c platform only shows Atmel as
> the most recent copyright.

Hey, AT91 are very well maintained, SAM9 as well as at91rm9200.
So, AT91 specific bits should be sent to this mailing-list with Andrew
Victor in copy.
I will also certainly add comments on this code.

Best regards,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

--
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/