linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 20/63] dmaengine: ste_dma40: Remove unnecessary call to d40_phy

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 3 May 2013 22:27:07 +0200
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Linus WALLEIJ <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	Srinidhi KASAGAR <srinidhi.kasagar@...ricsson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/63] dmaengine: ste_dma40: Remove unnecessary call to d40_phy_cfg()

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:

> All configuration left in d40_phy_cfg() is runtime configurable and
> there is already a call into it from d40_runtime_config(), so let's
> rely on that.
>
> Acked-by: Vinod Koul <vnod.koul@...el.com>
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
(...)

> @@ -2027,6 +2027,14 @@ static int d40_config_memcpy(struct d40_chan *d40c)
>         } else if (dma_has_cap(DMA_MEMCPY, cap) &&
>                    dma_has_cap(DMA_SLAVE, cap)) {
>                 d40c->dma_cfg = dma40_memcpy_conf_phy;
> +
> +               /* Generate interrrupt at end of transfer or relink. */
> +               d40c->dst_def_cfg |= BIT(D40_SREG_CFG_TIM_POS);
> +
> +               /* Generate interrupt on error. */
> +               d40c->src_def_cfg |= BIT(D40_SREG_CFG_EIM_POS);
> +               d40c->dst_def_cfg |= BIT(D40_SREG_CFG_EIM_POS);
> +

This hunk looks like it's fixing a bug introduced in patch 19/63.

Do you try to run a memcpy test after patch 19?

Breaking the drive in one patch and fixing it in the next is
a no-no because of bisection.

Maybe things work fine if you just move this hunk of the
patch over to 19/63?

Apart from this the patch looks fine.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/