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: <20100621073909.GA20674@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
Date:	Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:39:09 +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 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.

Thanks,

> >> Index: drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c
> >> ===================================================================
> >> --- drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c      (revision 8927)
> >> +++ drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c      (revision 8929)
> >> @@ -795,8 +795,13 @@
> >>
> >>               jid = jedec_probe(spi);
> >>               if (!jid) {
> >> -                     dev_info(&spi->dev, "non-JEDEC variant of %s\n",
> >> -                              id->name);
> >> +                     if (!data->non_jedec) {
> >> +                             dev_err(&spi->dev, "fail to detect%s\n",
> >> +                                             id->name);
> >> +                             return -ENODEV;
> >> +                     } else
> >> +                             dev_info(&spi->dev, "non-JEDEC variant of %s\n",
> >> +                                             id->name);
> >>               } else if (jid != id) {
> >
> > --
> > Anton Vorontsov
> > email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
> > irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
> >

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
--
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/