linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] add support for DWC UFS Host Controller

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56B8BF90.3050602@synopsys.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:17:20 +0000
From:	Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
CC:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, <santosh.sy@...sung.com>,
	<h.vinayak@...sung.com>, <julian.calaby@...il.com>,
	<akinobu.mita@...il.com>, <hch@...radead.org>,
	<gbroner@...eaurora.org>, <subhashj@...eaurora.org>,
	<CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com>, <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] add support for DWC UFS Host Controller

On 2/8/2016 4:15 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:36:52PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> On 2/8/2016 3:30 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:17:11PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:
>>>> Hi Mark and Arnd,
>>>> Are you saying that a user that puts "snps,ufshcd-1.1"
>>>> in the DT compatibility string disables the UFS 2.0 in the core driver despite
>>>> the controller is 2.0? Please clarify.
>>>
>>> If you can consistently and safely detect that the HW is 2.0, using 2.0
>>> functionality is fine.
>>>
>>> Regardless, you should have a -1.1 compatible string for the 1.1 HW, and
>>> a -2.0 string for the 2.0 HW, so that DTs are explicit about what the
>>> hardware is. If 2.0 is intended to be a superset of 1.1, you can have a
>>> 1.1 fallback entry for the 2.0 hardware.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, I will include the version in the compatibility strings, but if someone
>> mentions "snps,ufshcd-1.1" only and the driver detects that the HW is 2.0
>> capable it will activate the 2.0 features independently of what mentioned in the
>> DT, correct?
> 
> As above, if that can be detected safely and reliably, then I don't see
> a problem with that.

Ok, thanks for the comments! I am working a bit in PCI next version patch and so
I predict to produce a new version for UFS next Wednesday.

Joao

> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>