linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx: correct the tuning-step setting

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]

Message-ID: <CAPDyKFp=DJP0t5Q90E4byuGypcHsK0wU629M=rK-WA20=AGKhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 2015 12:20:19 +0100
From:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:	Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@...escale.com>
Cc:	Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@...escale.com>,
	linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mmc: sdhci-esdhc-imx: correct the tuning-step setting

On 10 November 2015 at 10:43, Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@...escale.com> wrote:
> Here we use '|=' to set the tuning-step, but before that, we should
> clear the tuning-step, otherwise we could got the wrong setting.
>
> Signed-off-by: Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@...escale.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c | 7 +++++--
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c
> index 1508949..64275c7 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c
> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@
>  #define ESDHC_STD_TUNING_EN            (1 << 24)
>  /* NOTE: the minimum valid tuning start tap for mx6sl is 1 */
>  #define ESDHC_TUNING_START_TAP         0x1
> +#define ESDHC_TUNING_STEP_MASK         0x00070000
>  #define ESDHC_TUNING_STEP_SHIFT                16
>
>  /* pinctrl state */
> @@ -489,9 +490,11 @@ static void esdhc_writew_le(struct sdhci_host *host, u16 val, int reg)
>                                 m |= ESDHC_MIX_CTRL_FBCLK_SEL;
>                                 tuning_ctrl = readl(host->ioaddr + ESDHC_TUNING_CTRL);
>                                 tuning_ctrl |= ESDHC_STD_TUNING_EN | ESDHC_TUNING_START_TAP;
> -                               if (imx_data->boarddata.tuning_step)
> +                               if (imx_data->boarddata.tuning_step) {
> +                                       tuning_ctrl &= ~ESDHC_TUNING_STEP_MASK;
>                                         tuning_ctrl |= imx_data->boarddata.tuning_step << ESDHC_TUNING_STEP_SHIFT;
> -                                       writel(tuning_ctrl, host->ioaddr + ESDHC_TUNING_CTRL);
> +                               }
> +                               writel(tuning_ctrl, host->ioaddr + ESDHC_TUNING_CTRL);
>                         } else {
>                                 v &= ~ESDHC_MIX_CTRL_EXE_TUNE;
>                         }
> --
> 1.9.1
>

Looks good to me, but is there a dependency to patch 1/2 that should
prevent me from applying this one?

Kind regards
Uffe
--
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/