linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1] da9052: ONKEY: use correct register bit for key status

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, 11 Feb 2014 08:28:57 -0800
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	"Anthony Olech <anthony.olech.opensource@...semi.com>" 
	<Anthony.Olech.OpenSource@...semi.com>
Cc:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	David Dajun Chen <david.chen@...semi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1] da9052: ONKEY: use correct register bit for key status

Hi Anthony,

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 03:19:49PM +0000, Anthony Olech <anthony.olech.opensource@...semi.com> wrote:
> The wrong register bit of the DA9052/3 PMIC registers was
> used to determine the status on the ONKEY.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anthony Olech <anthony.olech.opensource@...semi.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Dajun Chen <david.chen@...semi.com>
> ---
> 
> This patch is relative to linux-next repository tag next-20140206
> 
> The bug that this patch fixes affects only the DA9052 ONKEY driver.
> 
> The problem was detected whilst running a scripted set of functional
> regression tests whilst investigating a different problem.
> 
> This patch has been test compiled on an amd64 server for both x86
> and arm targets.
> 
> This patch has been spot verified using an SMDK6410 platform
> fly-wired to a Dialog da9053 EVB.
> 
>  drivers/input/misc/da9052_onkey.c |   14 +++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/da9052_onkey.c b/drivers/input/misc/da9052_onkey.c
> index 1f695f2..7e78334 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/misc/da9052_onkey.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/da9052_onkey.c
> @@ -27,19 +27,23 @@ struct da9052_onkey {
>  
>  static void da9052_onkey_query(struct da9052_onkey *onkey)
>  {
> -	int key_stat;
> +	int ret, key_stat;
>  
> -	key_stat = da9052_reg_read(onkey->da9052, DA9052_EVENT_B_REG);
> -	if (key_stat < 0) {
> +	ret = da9052_reg_read(onkey->da9052, DA9052_STATUS_A_REG);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
>  		dev_err(onkey->da9052->dev,
> -			"Failed to read onkey event %d\n", key_stat);
> +			"Failed to read onkey event err=%d\n", ret);
> +		key_stat = false;

Why do you need this assignment? Also, key_stat is integer, why are we
using boolean values for it?

>  	} else {
>  		/*
>  		 * Since interrupt for deassertion of ONKEY pin is not
>  		 * generated, onkey event state determines the onkey
>  		 * button state.
>  		 */
> -		key_stat &= DA9052_EVENTB_ENONKEY;
> +		if (ret & DA9052_STATUSA_NONKEY)
> +			key_stat = false;
> +		else
> +			key_stat = true;

It seems to me that the relevant changes are replacement of
DA9052_EVENT_B_REG -> DA9052_STATUS_A_REG in da9052_reg_read() and doing:

		key_stat &= DA9052_STATUSA_NONKEY;
		input_report_key(onkey->input, KEY_POWER, !key_stat);

Right?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry 
--
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/