[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0812211545520.24883@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:46:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vernon Sauder <vernoninhand@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.28-rc9] spi: spi_write_then_read() regression fix
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, David Brownell wrote:
>
> All SPI transfers are full duplex, and are packaged as half duplex
> by either discarding the data that's read ("write only"), or else
> by writing zeroes ("read only"). That patch wasn't ensuring that
> zeroes were getting written out during the "half duplex read" part
> of the transaction; instead, old RX bits were getting sent.
Hmm. In addition, isn't this broken (in that same function):
memcpy(local_buf, txbuf, n_tx);
x.tx_buf = local_buf;
x.rx_buf = local_buf;
/* do the i/o */
status = spi_sync(spi, &message);
if (status == 0)
memcpy(rxbuf, x.rx_buf + n_tx, n_rx);
shouldn't that 'rx_buf' setup be
x.rx_buf = local_buf + n_tx;
since the whole point was that we allocated a buffer that can hold _both_
the rx and tx parts? Especially as that final copy into the resulting
"rxbuf" thing uses that "+ n_tx" addition?
Linus
--
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