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:	Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:25:26 -0800
From:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dwmw2@...radead.org, angus.clark@...com, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 33/36] mtd: st_spi_fsm: Supply the MX25xxx chip
 specific configuration call-back

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:19:22PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.h |  4 +-
>  2 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c b/drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c
> index f1276e5..be66a49 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c
> @@ -620,6 +645,65 @@ static int stfsm_prepare_rwe_seqs_default(struct stfsm *fsm)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int stfsm_mx25_config(struct stfsm *fsm)
> +{
> +	uint32_t flags = fsm->info->flags;
> +	uint32_t data_pads;
> +	uint8_t sta;
> +	int ret;
> +	bool soc_reset;
> +
> +	/* Disable support for 'WRITE_1_4_4' (limited to 20MHz which is of
> +	 * marginal benefit on our hardware and doesn't justify implementing
> +	 * different READ/WRITE frequencies).
> +	 */
> +	flags &= ~FLASH_FLAG_WRITE_1_4_4;

Huh? flags is a local variable, and you only use it for checking 32-bit
addressing mode in this function. So this flags modification is
effectively thrown away. Perhaps you meant

	fsm->info->flags &= ~FLASH_FLAG_WRITE_1_4_4;

? But then you're back to modifying static data (the device table)
through a per-instance reference. That's not good behavior. Rather,
couldn't you just remove this flag from the table entry in the first
place?

Brian
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ