linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH for 3.0] AT91: Change nand buswidth logic to match hardware default configuration

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, 04 Jul 2011 16:41:39 +0200
From:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, patrice.vilchez@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 3.0] AT91: Change nand buswidth logic to match hardware
 default configuration

Le 04/07/2011 16:25, Arnd Bergmann :
> On Monday 04 July 2011, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> Le 01/07/2011 12:25, Nicolas Ferre :
>>> The recently modified nand buswitth configuration is not aligned with
>>> board reality: the double footprint on boards is always populated with 8bits
>>> buswidth nand flashes.
>>> So we have to consider that without particular configuration the 8bits
>>> buswidth is selected by default.
>>> Moreover, the previous logic was always using !board_have_nand_8bit(), we
>>> change it to a simpler: board_have_nand_16bit().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
>>> Tested-by: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>
>>
>> Arnd,
>>
>> Can you please handle this parch for 3.0-final as a bug fix through the
>> arm-soc.git tree?
>>
>> You can queue it in addition of the pull request sent by
>> Jean-Christophe: "AT91: Fix pull requset".
> 
> Ok, I've integrated it in the branch and will send the pull request.
> 
> My preference would be to see fixes this late in the cycle more
> minmal. This patch does two things: 1. change the polarity of the
> system_rev bit as a bug fix and 2. change the polarity of the
> function reading it as a cleanup. Both changes look absolutely
> ok, but it's better to do the cleanup for the next kernel.
> 
> In this case, studying the patch more closely shows that it's
> very harmless, but I'd rather not have to look that closely.

Well, in fact it is a fix against what was introduced in a 3.0 patch
which I found to be wrong.
The reason because I do not want to be in next kernel is the fact that
it can puzzle the user (people that want to use kernel without changing
the system_rev between 2.6.39 -> 3.0 and again revert their changes for
3.0 -> 3.1).

> Am I correct that the bug is a regression against 2.6.39?

No, in fact it was introduced during 3.0 early -rc.

Anyway, thanks a lot Arnd.
Best regards,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

--
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/