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: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:27:07 +0300 From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com> To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com> CC: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>, Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>, Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>, Bob Mottram <bob.mottram@...ethink.co.uk>, "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: tegra: Maintain CPU endianness 23.01.2015 12:45, Thierry Reding пишет: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 08:18:34PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> 22.01.2015 19:06, Dmitry Osipenko пишет: >>> 22.01.2015 18:22, Dmitry Osipenko пишет: >>>> 22.01.2015 10:55, Alexandre Courbot пишет: >>>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Thierry Reding >>>>> <thierry.reding@...il.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Should this not technically be le32_to_cpu() since the data originates >>>>> >from the I2C controller? >>>> >>>> No, i2c_readl returns value in CPU endianness, so it's correct. But for >>>> i2c_writel should be used le32_to_cpu(), since it takes value in CPU endianness. >>>> It's my overlook, V2 is coming. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why does this have to be initialized to 0 now? >>>>> >>>>> I suspect this is because we are going to memcpy less than 4 bytes >>>>> into it, but I cannot figure out how that memcpy if guaranteed to >>>>> produce the expected result for both endiannesses. >>>>> >>>> That's correct. Memcpy is working with bytes, so it doesn't care about >>>> endianness and produces expected result, since I2C message is char array. >>>> >>> I'll spend some more time reviewing, to see if nullifying should go as separate >>> patch. >>> >> Well, I2C_FIFO_STATUS returns 8-bit value. The rest of bits very likely to >> be RAZ, however I don't see anything on it in documentation. In that case it >> won't cause any problems with LE value and nullifying is only needed for BE >> mode. > > What does I2C_FIFO_STATUS have to do with anything? > > My point was more that we already tell hardware how much data is to be > transferred (via the packet header in tegra_i2c_xfer_msg()), hence the > hardware shouldn't care whether the FIFO is padded with random data or > zeros. > > Thierry > Got your point. I was thinking it's expected behavior, but now I'll elaborate this more. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists