linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: rockchip: fix the rk3399 sdmmc sample shift

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, 13 May 2016 09:38:16 -0700
From:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:	Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>
Cc:	Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Xing Zheng <zhengxing@...k-chips.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
	linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: rockchip: fix the rk3399 sdmmc sample shift

Shawn,

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com> wrote:
>> This should be possible to verify in one of two ways.  If the TRM has
>> a typo and things truly _do_ start at 0 instead of 1, then:
>>
>> 1. There will be roughly mirrors of valid ranges.
>> 2. Things won't match up if we change tuning to use 180 course offsets
>> and the rest fine offsets.
>>
>> It would be ideal if you could confirm with the chip guys, but if you
>
>
> I have checked it before Xing upstreamed the code, but as your question on
> the TRM, I check it with the  chip guys again.
>
> So the answer is that drv/sample stuff should refer to  Mobile Strorage
> Host Controller section, and it will fit the future Socs from now on.

OK, awesome.  I also did more quick tests by forcing dw_mmc to give me
extra details about the tuning.  These tests agree with you.

Please consider this patch abandoned.  Note that the previous patch
(1/2) is still good as far as I know, so just this patch (2/2) should
be abandoned.

Thanks!  :)

-Doug