linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 4/5] mmc: shdci-bcm2835: add verify for 32-bit back-to-back workaround

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <545D1006.5040705@broadcom.com>
Date:	Fri, 7 Nov 2014 10:31:34 -0800
From:	Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
	"Peter Griffin" <peter.griffin@...aro.org>,
	Chris Ball <chris@...ntf.net>,
	"Piotr Krol" <pietrushnic@...il.com>
CC:	<linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	<linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
	<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/5] mmc: shdci-bcm2835: add verify for 32-bit back-to-back
 workaround

On 14-11-05 09:01 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/05/2014 12:00 AM, Scott Branden wrote:
>> On 14-11-04 08:59 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2014 12:36 AM, Scott Branden wrote:
>>>> Add a verify option to driver to print out an error message if a
>>>> potential back to back write could cause a clock domain issue.
>>>
>>>> index f8c450a..11af27f 100644
>>>
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_BCM2835_VERIFY_WORKAROUND
>>>> +    struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
>>>> +    struct bcm2835_sdhci_host *bcm2835_host = pltfm_host->priv;
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (bcm2835_host->previous_reg == reg) {
>>>> +        if ((reg != SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL)
>>>> +            && (reg != SDHCI_CLOCK_CONTROL)) {
>>>
>>> The comment in patch 3 says the problem doesn't apply to the data
>>> register. Why does this check for these two registers rather than data?
>> This Verify workaround patch still a work in progress.  I'm still
>> getting more info from the silicon designers on the back-to-back
>> register writes that are affect.  The spew of 0x20 or 0x28 or 0x2c
>> register writes are all ok locations that don't need to be worked
>> around.  This patch needs to be corrected with the proper register rules
>> still.
Thanks for testing.  Yes, I have work to do on the verify patch above still.
>
> FYI, I applied the series except for this patch, and everything
> /appeared/ to work OK for a brief test (boot, log in, reboot). Still,
> I'll hold off my Tested-by/acked-by until the comment in patch 3 and the
> register list above match, and there's no log spew with everything applied.
>

--
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/