linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 28/39] mtd: nand: denali: move multi NAND fixup code to a helper function

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]

Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:07:49 +0100
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:     linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 28/39] mtd: nand: denali: move multi NAND fixup code to
 a helper function

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:09:27 +0900
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> 
> 2016-11-28 1:24 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>:
> > On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 03:06:14 +0900
> > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> Collect multi NAND fixups into a helper function instead of
> >> scattering them in denali_init().  
> >
> > Can you tell me more about this multi-NAND feature?
> > The core is already able to detect multi-die NAND chips in a generic
> > way,  
> 
> This is not the case.
> 
> > but I fear this is something else, like "put two 8-bits chips on a
> > 16bits bus to emulate a single 16bits chip".  
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> (I have never used this controller like that.
> But, I am pretty sure it is
> from the code and the
> Denali's User Guide mentions such usage.)
> 
> 
> Just in case, I will clearly rephrase the comment block like follows in v2:
> 
>         /*
>          * Support for multi device:
>          * When the IP configuration is x16 capable and two x8 chips are
>          * connected in parallel, DEVICES_CONNECTED should be set to 2.
>          * In this case, the core framework knows nothing about this fact,
>          * so we should tell it the _logical_ pagesize and anything necessary.
>          */
> 

BTW, you should also set the NAND_BUSWIDTH_16 flag in this case.

> 
> 
> 
> > If that's a case, and this feature is actually used, then it's a bad
> > idea IMHO.
> > For example, how do you handle the case where one block is bad on a
> > chip but not on the other? And I fear this is not the only problem
> > with this approach :-/.  
> 
> As you expect, if one block is bad,
> the correspond block on the other chip can not be used.
> 

Hm, last time I thought about this usage I found others things that
could cause problems, but I can't remember exactly what.

Anyway, if this feature is already used, let's keep it.