linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] mtd: devices: m25p80: add support for mmap read request

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: <56CDA034.7050607@ti.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:51:08 +0530
From:	Vignesh R <vigneshr@...com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"hramrach@...il.com" <hramrach@...il.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] mtd: devices: m25p80: add support for mmap read
 request



On 02/17/2016 09:41 PM, R, Vignesh wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/16/2016 06:08 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 01:30:49PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
>>> On 02/13/2016 04:07 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:03:50AM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
>>>>> On 02/10/2016 01:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Looking at this I can't help but think that spi_flash_read() ought to
>>>>>> have the stub in rather than the caller.  But given that we're pretty
>>>>>> much only ever expecting one user I'm not 100% sure it actually matters.
>>
>>>>> Well, my initial patch set passed long list of arguments to
>>>>> spi_flash_read(), but Brian suggested to use struct[1] in order to avoid
>>>>> unnecessary churn when things need changed in the API.
>>
>>>> I don't see what that has to do with my point?
>>
>>> AFAIU, your previous comment was to move initialization of
>>> spi_flash_read_message struct to spi_flash_read(). This would mean
>>
>> No, not at all.  I'm talking about how we handle the case where we don't
>> have hardware support for this and need to implement it in software -
>> currently that's in a separate place to the place where we call the
>> driver.
>>
> 
> Yeah, but AFAIK, hardware accelerated read support is applicable for
> m25p80 flashes only, I doubt whether spi_flash_read() will be used by
> other types. I felt keeping the software implementation in m25p80_read()
> will be consistent with m25p80_write().

Is there any further work required on the patch? If not, what's the plan
to merge this patch?

-- 
Regards
Vignesh