linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mtd: atmel-quadspi: add driver for Atmel QSPI 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:55:11 -0700
From:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, nicolas.ferre@...el.com,
	boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com, marex@...x.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mtd: atmel-quadspi: add driver for Atmel QSPI
 controller

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 09:35:39PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday, July 15, 2016 5:45:07 PM CEST Brian Norris wrote:
> > Applied to l2-mtd.git with that fixup.
> 
> I'm getting this build error now on a randconfig build:
> 
> drivers/mtd/built-in.o: In function `atmel_qspi_run_command':
> :(.text+0x1ee3c): undefined reference to `_memcpy_toio'
> :(.text+0x1ee48): undefined reference to `_memcpy_fromio'

Whoops, I noticed those during review, but I don't know why I forgot to
mention them nor fix them up before applying.

> On ARCH_EBSA, which doesn't build the file that contains the two
> functions. I don't see any other driver on ARM using those two
> functions directly. What is the specific reason for using them
> here? Do you require byte-wise accesses, or could you use
> the normal memcpy_toio/memcpy_fromio that turn into aligned
> 32-bit word accesses instead?

Good questions. I would suspect that aligned 32-bit accesses are what
they're looking for, but I'm not absolutely sure.

> If you have to use the non-portable
> functions, maybe we can just make the driver depend on !ARCH_EBSA?

I don't see an ARCH_EBSA. Did you mean ARCH_EBSA110?

Or we could just drop the '|| (ARM && COMPILE_TEST)' clause for now:

	depends on ARCH_AT91 || (ARM && COMPILE_TEST)

Brian