linux-kernel - Re: [Uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH 1/2] mtd: m25p80: Reworkprobing/JEDEC code

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]

Message-ID: <20100621112049.GA9273@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
Date:	Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:20:49 +0400
From:	Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@...il.com>
To:	Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc:	"Song, Barry" <Barry.Song@...log.com>,
	David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH 1/2] mtd: m25p80:
 Reworkprobing/JEDEC code

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 06:31:44PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 03:22:48PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@...il.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:27:31AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> > How about we add a non_jedec flag in platform_data, if the flag is 1, we
> >> >> > let the detection pass even though the ID is 0? Otherwise, we need a
> >> >> > valid ID?
> >> >> Here i mean:
> >> >
> >> > This will break at least OF-enabled platforms (e.g. PowerPC),
> >> > they assume that the driver will success for non-JEDEC flashes.
> >> > OF platforms don't pass platform data, and even if they did,
> >> > device tree doesn't specify if the flash is JEDEC or non-JEDEC.
> >> >
> >> > Which is why I think that, by default, the driver should
> >> > successfully register the flash even if JEDEC probe fails. So,
> >> > instead of checking for "!non_jedec", I would recommend
> >> > "force_jedec" check.
> >>
> >> Mike Frysinger suggested to use non_jedec since most devices are
> >> standard jedec devices.
> >
> > Well, on OF platforms most devices that I'm aware of are non-JEDEC.
> >
> >> Only if non_jedec=1, we let the detection pass
> >> if ID is 0.
> >
> > Then please #ifdef it with CONFIG_OF.
> I think the patch has nothing to do with platform. Here SPI Flash is a
> peripherals, doesn't depend on any platform. Adding a CONFIG_OF
> doesn't make sense very much.

With OF we don't place non-existent devices into the device
tree (or we mark them with status = "not-ok/disabled/absent"
property).

> If you think most devices are non-JEDEC, we can change non_JEDEC to
> force_JEDEC as you said.
> But anyway, is that real that most devices are non_JEDEC?

Why would this matter? We have to support both.

> If not, I think we should change OF platform codes to
> fit with this patch.

You can't easily change OF. It's like "let's change ACPI tables
or BIOS in these PCs". Doable, but involves things like reflashing.
And we usually have to support old BIOSes as well.

OTOH, I see (git grep m25p arch/powerpc/boot/dts/) that in
mainline kernel only MPC8569 board has a correct m25p
node, and it is STMicro variant (it is JEDEC capable).

As we don't really have to support out of tree code, I'd
just go with this patch, assuming that we have to change
device tree for boards with non-JEDEC flashes. It's
effectively the same thing as platform data flag, except
that it works automatically for OF platforms.

Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...sta.com>
---

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c b/drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c
index 81e49a9..a610ca9 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c
@@ -680,6 +680,16 @@ static const struct spi_device_id m25p_ids[] = {
 	{ "m25p64",  INFO(0x202017,  0,  64 * 1024, 128, 0) },
 	{ "m25p128", INFO(0x202018,  0, 256 * 1024,  64, 0) },
 
+	{ "m25p05-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  32 * 1024,   2, 0) },
+	{ "m25p10-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  32 * 1024,   4, 0) },
+	{ "m25p20-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  64 * 1024,   4, 0) },
+	{ "m25p40-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  64 * 1024,   8, 0) },
+	{ "m25p80-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  64 * 1024,  16, 0) },
+	{ "m25p16-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  64 * 1024,  32, 0) },
+	{ "m25p32-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  64 * 1024,  64, 0) },
+	{ "m25p64-nonjedec",  INFO(0, 0,  64 * 1024, 128, 0) },
+	{ "m25p128-nonjedec", INFO(0, 0, 256 * 1024,  64, 0) },
+
 	{ "m45pe10", INFO(0x204011,  0, 64 * 1024,    2, 0) },
 	{ "m45pe80", INFO(0x204014,  0, 64 * 1024,   16, 0) },
 	{ "m45pe16", INFO(0x204015,  0, 64 * 1024,   32, 0) },
@@ -795,8 +805,7 @@ static int __devinit m25p_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
 
 		jid = jedec_probe(spi);
 		if (!jid) {
-			dev_info(&spi->dev, "non-JEDEC variant of %s\n",
-				 id->name);
+			return -ENODEV;
 		} else if (jid != id) {
 			/*
 			 * JEDEC knows better, so overwrite platform ID. We
--
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/