linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-v3] Support M95040 SPI EEPROM

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:	Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:21:57 +0200
From:	Ivo Sieben <meltedpianoman@...il.com>
To:	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v3] Support M95040 SPI EEPROM

Hi,

Op 3 april 2012 19:17 heeft Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de> het
volgende geschreven:
>
>> > > > +#define EE_INSTR_BIT3_IS_ADDR  0x0010
>> > >
>> > > Is there some guarantee that this chip flag will always have this
>> > > meaning?
>> >
>> > ? This is a driver flag.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't see it set anywhere, so unclear on where it comes from.
>> I thought it was from a generic spi probe.
>
> Yeah, agreed, 'struct spi_eeprom' does not sound much like platform_data :/
> Thanks for checking.

The flag is indeed used in the platform initialization to enable the
"address bit" behavior, so you don't see it set anywhere in this patch
(and not anywhere in the kernel, since no board uses this flag yet).

Is it OK if we leave this patch like this?

Regards,
Ivo Sieben
--
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/