linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 2/7] mmc: sdhci: made changes for System Address register of SDMA

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:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 14:22:51 +0300
From:   Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To:     Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chunyan@...aro.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>,
        Billows Wu <billows.wu@...eadtrum.com>, zhang.lyra@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/7] mmc: sdhci: made changes for System Address
 register of SDMA

On 15/06/18 05:04, Chunyan Zhang wrote:
> According to the SD host controller specification version 4.10, when
> Host Version 4 is enabled, SDMA uses ADMA System Address register
> (05Fh-058h) instead of using SDMA System Address register to
> support both 32-bit and 64-bit addressing.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chunyan@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 10 ++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> index cf5695f..f57201f 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> @@ -805,6 +805,7 @@ static void sdhci_set_timeout(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd)
>  static void sdhci_prepare_data(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd)
>  {
>  	u8 ctrl;
> +	u32 reg;

reg could just be an int.

>  	struct mmc_data *data = cmd->data;
>  
>  	if (sdhci_data_line_cmd(cmd))
> @@ -894,8 +895,10 @@ static void sdhci_prepare_data(struct sdhci_host *host, struct mmc_command *cmd)
>  					     SDHCI_ADMA_ADDRESS_HI);
>  		} else {
>  			WARN_ON(sg_cnt != 1);
> +			reg = host->v4_mode ? SDHCI_ADMA_ADDRESS :
> +				SDHCI_DMA_ADDRESS;
>  			sdhci_writel(host, sdhci_sdma_address(host),
> -				     SDHCI_DMA_ADDRESS);
> +				     reg);

Shouldn't we support 64-bit SDMA in version 4 mode?


>  		}
>  	}
>  
> @@ -2721,6 +2724,7 @@ static void sdhci_data_irq(struct sdhci_host *host, u32 intmask)
>  		 */
>  		if (intmask & SDHCI_INT_DMA_END) {
>  			u32 dmastart, dmanow;
> +			u32 reg;
>  
>  			dmastart = sdhci_sdma_address(host);
>  			dmanow = dmastart + host->data->bytes_xfered;
> @@ -2733,7 +2737,9 @@ static void sdhci_data_irq(struct sdhci_host *host, u32 intmask)
>  			host->data->bytes_xfered = dmanow - dmastart;
>  			DBG("DMA base 0x%08x, transferred 0x%06x bytes, next 0x%08x\n",
>  			    dmastart, host->data->bytes_xfered, dmanow);
> -			sdhci_writel(host, dmanow, SDHCI_DMA_ADDRESS);
> +			reg = host->v4_mode ? SDHCI_ADMA_ADDRESS :
> +				SDHCI_DMA_ADDRESS;
> +			sdhci_writel(host, dmanow, reg);

Shouldn't we support 64-bit SDMA in version 4 mode?

>  		}
>  
>  		if (intmask & SDHCI_INT_DATA_END) {
>