linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] brcmnand: Fix up the flash cache register offset for older controllers

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: <20170705181852.GA117111@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jul 2017 11:18:52 -0700
From:   Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Karl Beldan <karl.beldan@...il.com>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@...il.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>,
        Karl Beldan <karl.beldan+oss@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] brcmnand: Fix up the flash cache register offset for
 older controllers

Ha, I was in the middle of writing essentially this :)

On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 11:15:01AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 07/05/2017 10:46 AM, Karl Beldan wrote:
> > From: Karl Beldan <karl.beldan-ext@...emcom.com>
> > 
> > Tested on BCM{63138,6838,63268} and cross checked with the various
> > *_map_part.h which the brcmnand_regs_v* in brcmnand.c have historically
> > been derived from.
> 
> BCM63138 is using a 7.0 controller, 6838 uses a 5.0 controller, but has
> a separate flash cache register which does indeed end up at 0x400 bytes
> off the main FLASH block, and finally 63268 does have a v4.0 controller
> and the flash cache is also in a separate register that makes it end up
> at 0x400.

The joy of arbitrarily-changing IP, since of course business units
within a company (or even divisions within the same business unit) would
never want to share software...

> Your change, as proposed would break chips like 7425 which use 5.0
> controller with the flash cache at 0x200 bytes.
> 
> The binding describes an optional flash-cache register cell that you can
> specify, so that's probably what you want to do here?

What he said ^^^

The "nand-cache" register range sounds like what you're looking for.

Brian