linux-kernel - Re: Using regmap_update_bits to update a write only register

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:	Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:36:23 +0100
From:	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
To:	Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>
CC:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Using regmap_update_bits to update a write only register

On 03/06/2015 06:26 PM, Daniel Baluta wrote:
[...]
> I can reproduce the problem with:
>
> static struct reg_default xxx_reg_defaults[] = {
>          { XXX_REG_CTRL0,  0x00 },
>          { XXX_REG_CTRL1,  0x00 },
>          { XXX_REG_STATUS, 0x00 },
> };
>
> but, not if the reg default definition is:
>
> static struct reg_default xxx_reg_defaults[] = {
>          { XXX_REG_STATUS, 0x00 },
>          { XXX_REG_CTRL0,  0x00 },
>          { XXX_REG_CTRL1,  0x00 },
>    };
>
> Is this normal?

That's a rhetorical question, right?

It might be that there is a bug when growing a rbblock to the left. It 
probably went unnoticed because everybody has their reg defaults ordered in 
ascending order.

Try to put a few debug printks into regcache_rbtree_write() and 
regcache_rbtree_insert_to_block() to see what exactly is going on when a new 
register is inserted into the block. How do base_reg and top_reg change.

- Lars
--
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/