linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/8 v7] drm/i915/intel

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:	Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:03:04 +0200
From:	Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To:	Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>
Cc:	Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
	Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
	Yufeng Shen <miletus@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8 v7] drm/i915/intel_i2c: use WAIT cycle, not STOP

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 06:56:15PM +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:37:46PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 07:46:39PM +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> >> > The i915 is only able to generate a STOP cycle (i.e. finalize an i2c
> >> > transaction) during a DATA or WAIT phase.  In other words, the
> >> > controller rejects a STOP requested as part of the first transaction in a
> >> > sequence.
> >> >
> >> > Thus, for the first transaction we must always use a WAIT cycle, detect
> >> > when the device has finished (and is in a WAIT phase), and then either
> >> > start the next transaction, or, if there are no more transactions,
> >> > generate a STOP cycle.
> >> >
> >> > Note: Theoretically, the last transaction of a multi-transaction sequence
> >> > could initiate a STOP cycle.  However, this slight optimization is left
> >> > for another patch.  We return -ETIMEDOUT if the hardware doesn't
> >> > deactivate after the STOP cycle.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>
> >>
> >> I've re-read gmbus register spec and STOP seems to be allowed even in the
> >> first cycle. Does this patch solve an issue for you? If not, I prefer we
> >> just drop it.
> 
> STOP does not work in the first cycle, hence the patch.

Ok, I've picked this patch up and extended the comment a bit to that
effect. Just to avoid anyone else trying to 'fix' things because bspec
sounds like it should work.

I've also picked up the other patches safe for the last one, thanks a lot
for digging through the gmbus code and fixing it all up.

Now can I volunteer you for a (hopefully) last set of gmbus patches?
Afaics there are a few small things left to fix:
- zero-length reads can blow up the kernel, like zero-length writes could.
  See: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48269
- Chris Wilson suggested on irc that we should wait for HW_READY even for
  zero-length writes (and also reads), currently we don't.
- atm the debug output is too noisy. I think we can leave the fallback to
  gpio bitbanging at info (or maybe error) level, but all the other
  messages should be tuned down to DRM_DEBUG_KMS - these can easily be hit
  when userspace tries to probe the i2c with nothing connected or if the
  driver code tries to do the same. See:
  https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48248

Chris, anything you want to add to the wishlist?

Thanks, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Mail: daniel@...ll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48
--
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/