| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:36:18 +0800
From: Kevin Liu <keyuan.liu@...il.com>
To: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Cc: Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kyungmin.park@...sung.com,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>, lrg@...com,
Philip Rakity <prakity@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: FW: [PATCH v2] mmc: sdhci: apply voltage range check only for
non-fixed regulators
2012/11/20 Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>:
> Hello,
>
>
> On 11/20/2012 9:59 AM, Kevin Liu wrote:
>>
>> 2012/11/20 Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> >
>> > On 11/14/2012 8:11 AM, Kevin Liu wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > From: linux-mmc-owner@...r.kernel.org
>> >> > [mailto:linux-mmc-owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Chris Ball
>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:14 PM
>> >> > To: Marek Szyprowski
>> >> > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org; Kyungmin
>> >> > Park; Mark Brown; Liam Girdwood; Philip Rakity
>> >> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mmc: sdhci: apply voltage range check only
>> >> > for
>> >> > non-fixed regulators
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Nov 13 2012, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> >> >>> On Tue, Nov 13 2012, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> >> >>> > Fixed regulators cannot change their voltage, so disable all
>> >> >>> > voltage
>> >> >>> > range checking for them, otherwise the driver fails to operate
>> >> >>> > with
>> >> >>> > fixed regulators. Up to now it worked only by luck, because
>> >> >>> > regulator_is_supported_voltage() function returned incorrect
>> >> >>> > values.
>> >> >>> > Commit "regulator: fix voltage check in
>> >> >>> > regulator_is_supported_voltage()"
>> >> >>> > fixed that function and now additional check is needed for fixed
>> >> >>> > regulators.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
>> >> >>> > ---
>> >> >>> > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 2 +-
>> >> >>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>> >> >>> > index c7851c0..6f6534e 100644
>> >> >>> > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>> >> >>> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>> >> >>> > @@ -2923,7 +2923,7 @@ int sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
>> >> >>> > regulator_enable(host->vmmc);
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > #ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR
>> >> >>> > - if (host->vmmc) {
>> >> >>> > + if (host->vmmc && regulator_count_voltages(host->vmmc) > 1) {
>> >> >>> > ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host->vmmc,
>> >> >>> > 3300000,
>> >> >>> > 3300000);
>> >> >>> > if ((ret <= 0) || (!(caps[0] & SDHCI_CAN_VDD_330)))
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thanks for the longer explanation. I'm still missing something,
>> >> >>> though;
>> >> >>> what's wrong with running the check as it was with the new
>> >> >>> regulator
>> >> >>> code?
>> >> >>> (I haven't tried it yet.)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR
>> >> >>> if (host->vmmc) {
>> >> >>> ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host->vmmc,
>> >> >>> 3300000,
>> >> >>> 3300000);
>> >> >>> if ((ret <= 0) || (!(caps[0] &
>> >> >>> SDHCI_CAN_VDD_330)))
>> >> >>> caps[0] &= ~SDHCI_CAN_VDD_330;
>> >> >>> ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host->vmmc,
>> >> >>> 3000000,
>> >> >>> 3000000);
>> >> >>> if ((ret <= 0) || (!(caps[0] &
>> >> >>> SDHCI_CAN_VDD_300)))
>> >> >>> caps[0] &= ~SDHCI_CAN_VDD_300;
>> >> >>> ret = regulator_is_supported_voltage(host->vmmc,
>> >> >>> 1800000,
>> >> >>> 1800000);
>> >> >>> if ((ret <= 0) || (!(caps[0] &
>> >> >>> SDHCI_CAN_VDD_180)))
>> >> >>> caps[0] &= ~SDHCI_CAN_VDD_180;
>> >> >>> }
>> >> >>> #endif /* CONFIG_REGULATOR */
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The point is to remove unsupported voltages, so if someone sets up
>> >> >>> a
>> >> >>> fixed regulator at 3300000, all of the other caps are disabled.
>> >> >>> Why
>> >> >>> wouldn't that work without this change, and how are we supposed to
>> >> >>> remove those caps on a fixed regulator after your patchset?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thanks, sorry if I'm missing something obvious,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On our boards eMMC is connected to fixed 2.8V regulator, what
>> >> >> results
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> clearing all available voltages and fail. The same situation is when
>> >> >> one
>> >> >> enable dummy regulator and try to use sdhci with it. My patch fixes
>> >> >> this
>> >> >> and restores sdhci to working state as it was before (before fixing
>> >> >> regulator regulator_is_supported_voltage() function and earlier when
>> >> >> MMC_BROKEN_VOLATGE capability was used).
>> >> >
>> >> > I see. Sounds like a separate bug -- Philip (or anyone else), any
>> >> > idea how we should be treating eMMCs with a fixed voltage here?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I think we should check the voltage range rather than the voltage
>> >> point accoring to the spec.
>> >> Otherwise some valid voltage like 2.8v will be discarded by mistake.
>> >> My below old patch aim to fix this issue.
>> >> How do you think?
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Kevin Liu [mailto:keyuan.liu@...il.com]
>> >> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:56 PM
>> >> To: linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org; cjb@...top.org; pierre@...man.eu;
>> >> ulf.hansson@...aro.org; Zhangfei Gao
>> >> Cc: Haojian Zhuang; Chao Xie; Philip Rakity; Kevin Liu; Jialing Fu
>> >> Subject: [PATCH v5 03/13] mmc: sdhci: use regulator min/max voltage
>> >> range according to spec
>> >>
>> >> From: Kevin Liu <kliu5@...vell.com>
>> >>
>> >> For regulator vmmc/vmmcq, use voltage range as below
>> >> 3.3v/3.0v: (2.7v, 3.6v)
>> >> 1.8v: (1.7v, 1.95v)
>> >> Original code use the specific value which may fail in regulator
>> >> driver if it does NOT support the specific voltage.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Jialing Fu <jlfu@...vell.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Kevin Liu <kliu5@...vell.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
>> >
>> > This patch restores sdhci devices to working state on Samsung boards
>> > (tested on GONI and UniversalC210) after merging "regulator: fix voltage
>> > check in regulator_is_supported_voltage()" patch to v3.7-rc6 (commit
>> > f0f98b19e23d4426ca185e3d4ca80e6aff5ef51b). Would be great to have it
>> > merged before the final v3.7 is out.
>> >
>> Marek,
>>
>> thanks a lot for the verification!
>> And your patch "mmc: sdhci: apply voltage range check only for
>> non-fixed regulators" (commit
>> d5b5205f2d480a47863dda0772d2d9dc47c2b51b, which has been merged in
>> mmc-next) can be reverted if this patch merged?
>
>
> Yes, it can be replaced with it, although there is still an issue that need
> to be resolved somehow. Right now SDHCI driver fails to initialize if
> support
> for dummy regulator is enabled.
>
Then I think the dummy issue can be resolved with your patch merged
and if you can just update your patch from
"regulator_count_voltages(host->vmmc) > 1"
to
"regulator_count_voltages(host->vmmc) > 0"
to let fix regulator work.
Thanks
Kevin
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists