linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] add support for DWC UFS Host Controller

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:	Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:15:30 +0000
From:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:	Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, santosh.sy@...sung.com,
	h.vinayak@...sung.com, julian.calaby@...il.com,
	akinobu.mita@...il.com, hch@...radead.org, gbroner@...eaurora.org,
	subhashj@...eaurora.org, CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com,
	ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] add support for DWC UFS Host Controller

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:36:52PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> On 2/8/2016 3:30 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:17:11PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:
> >> Hi Mark and Arnd,
> >> Are you saying that a user that puts "snps,ufshcd-1.1"
> >> in the DT compatibility string disables the UFS 2.0 in the core driver despite
> >> the controller is 2.0? Please clarify.
> > 
> > If you can consistently and safely detect that the HW is 2.0, using 2.0
> > functionality is fine.
> > 
> > Regardless, you should have a -1.1 compatible string for the 1.1 HW, and
> > a -2.0 string for the 2.0 HW, so that DTs are explicit about what the
> > hardware is. If 2.0 is intended to be a superset of 1.1, you can have a
> > 1.1 fallback entry for the 2.0 hardware.
> > 
> 
> Ok, I will include the version in the compatibility strings, but if someone
> mentions "snps,ufshcd-1.1" only and the driver detects that the HW is 2.0
> capable it will activate the 2.0 features independently of what mentioned in the
> DT, correct?

As above, if that can be detected safely and reliably, then I don't see
a problem with that.

Thanks,
Mark.