linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sdhci-of-arasan: Add quirk and device tree parameter to fake CD bit

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, 26 Aug 2016 09:42:38 +0200
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Zach Brown <zach.brown@...com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sdhci-of-arasan: Add quirk and device tree parameter
 to fake CD bit

On 25 August 2016 at 22:46, Zach Brown <zach.brown@...com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 07:28:55PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 01:26:22PM -0500, Zach Brown wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 07:10:00PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:15:44PM -0500, Zach Brown wrote:
>> > > > In cases where the card is non-removable then polling doesn't make sense.
>> > >
>> > > We have the non-removable property to describe that, so we can also look at that.
>> > >
>> > > > So it doesn't make sense to tie the test mode workaround into the broken-cd
>> > > > property, even though I agree the nature of the defect fits under the notion
>> > > > of the CD being broken.
>> > >
>> > > Maybe not solely on broken-cd, but I think that we dont necessarily need a new
>> > > DT property. As above, broken-cd, non-removable, and the compatible string may
>> > > together give the kernel enough information to choose the right thing to do.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Mark.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure if I understand your suggestion completely. Are you suggesting
>> > setting both the broken-cd and non-removable properties? That would make sense,
>> > but my understanding was that the two properities are not meant to co-exist. In
>> > /Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc.txt it states that only one should
>> > be supplied. Don't the two properties conflict with each other?
>>
>> They do for the cases that exist today, but given we're updating the document
>> anyway, we could simply clarify the cases in which the two can sanely co-exist
>> (e.g.  for this particular IP block).

No, please!

Depending on the SDHCI variant there is already some difference on how
broken-cd is treated.

Let's not add yet another, as I think it will be too complicated for
people to understand the bindings.

>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>
> That makes sense. I'll change the documentation for broken-cd and non-removable
> in the IP specific document and change the driver accordingly.

I rather have a new DT binding specific for this case.

Perhaps there's a better name than "fake-cd". How about "force-cd", or
if someone can come up with a better name.

Kind regards
Uffe