linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] libahci: save port map for forced port map

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: <20160330185706.GQ7822@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date:	Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:57:06 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, jmaggard10@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] libahci: save port map for forced port map

Hello,

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 02:11:13PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> In usecases where force_port_map is used saved_port_map is never set,
> resulting in not programming the PORTS_IMPL register as part of intial
> config. This patch fixes this by setting it to port_map even in case
> where force_port_map is used, making it more inline with other parts of
> the code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/ata/libahci.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libahci.c b/drivers/ata/libahci.c
> index 3982054..a5d7c1c 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libahci.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libahci.c
> @@ -507,6 +507,7 @@ void ahci_save_initial_config(struct device *dev, struct ahci_host_priv *hpriv)
>  		dev_info(dev, "forcing port_map 0x%x -> 0x%x\n",
>  			 port_map, hpriv->force_port_map);
>  		port_map = hpriv->force_port_map;
> +		hpriv->saved_port_map = port_map;

So, the only change it'd cause is making the driver write the forced
value to the PI register.  Does that make sense?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun