linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sdhci-of-arasan: Add quirk and device tree parameter to fake CD bit

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: <20160825204645.GA19450@zach-desktop>
Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:46:45 -0500
From:   Zach Brown <zach.brown@...com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC:     <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <michal.simek@...inx.com>, <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <lars@...afoo.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sdhci-of-arasan: Add quirk and device tree parameter
 to fake CD bit

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 07:28:55PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 01:26:22PM -0500, Zach Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 07:10:00PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:15:44PM -0500, Zach Brown wrote:
> > > > In cases where the card is non-removable then polling doesn't make sense.
> > > 
> > > We have the non-removable property to describe that, so we can also look at that.
> > > 
> > > > So it doesn't make sense to tie the test mode workaround into the broken-cd
> > > > property, even though I agree the nature of the defect fits under the notion
> > > > of the CD being broken.
> > > 
> > > Maybe not solely on broken-cd, but I think that we dont necessarily need a new
> > > DT property. As above, broken-cd, non-removable, and the compatible string may
> > > together give the kernel enough information to choose the right thing to do.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mark.
> > 
> > I'm not sure if I understand your suggestion completely. Are you suggesting
> > setting both the broken-cd and non-removable properties? That would make sense,
> > but my understanding was that the two properities are not meant to co-exist. In
> > /Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc.txt it states that only one should
> > be supplied. Don't the two properties conflict with each other?
> 
> They do for the cases that exist today, but given we're updating the document
> anyway, we could simply clarify the cases in which the two can sanely co-exist
> (e.g.  for this particular IP block).
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.

That makes sense. I'll change the documentation for broken-cd and non-removable
in the IP specific document and change the driver accordingly.