linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] spi: do not fail if the CS line is not connected

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: <20160627140827.GF424@jack.zhora.eu>
Date:	Mon, 27 Jun 2016 23:08:27 +0900
From:	Andi Shyti <andi@...zian.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...sung.com>, Andi Shyti <andi@...zian.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] spi: do not fail if the CS line is not connected

Hi Mark,

> > What I meant is that if we do not like num-cs = <0>, the
> > unlinked CS line can be handled only this way (case of the
> > s3c64xx driver):
> 
> > +- broken-cs: the CS line is disconnected, therefore the device should not wait
> > +  for the CS protocol to be established
> 
> So what you're saying here is that you just need a property for the
> inability to read back the chip select status?  That seems like a
> totally reasonable thing to have which fits in idiomatically with the
> rest of the subsystem.  I might call it no-cs-readback or something.
> 
> > Which is not something I like, because it means adding a new
> > flag in the dts.
> 
> > What I want to suggest, instead, is to slightly change the logic
> > behind the num-cs property: i.e. if "num-cs = <0>", doesn't
> > necessarily mean that we don't have a CS controller, but, while
> > we can have as many as we wish, non of them is connected.
> 
> I disagree, I think from a system integration point of view this is just
> a chip select which can't be changed and it's less likely that we will
> run into nasty surprises later on with things assuming that chip selects
> exist.  AFAICT you only need this property in your case because this
> controller has some features that rely on readback of the chip select
> status, that's not very common - normally it'd be write only.  I'd
> expect most controllers would just say they have one chip select and
> that'd be that.

thanks for your feedback, I will then do as you say, I will use
the no-cs-readback flag.

Thanks again,
Andi