linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mtd: rawnand: ams-delta: use ->exec

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 4 Oct 2018 15:59:33 +0200
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
To:     Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com>
Cc:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mtd: rawnand: ams-delta: use ->exec_op()

On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:52:57 +0200
Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com> wrote:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 4:06:34 PM CEST Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 15:55:25 +0200
> > Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com> wrote:
> >     
> > > > > 
> > > > > Implementation of NAND_OP_WAITRDY_INSTR has been based on legacy
> > > > > nand_wait_ready(),    
> > > > 
> > > > I don't remember what the ams-delta ->dev_ready()/->waitfunc() hooks
> > > > are doing, but is shouldn't be too hard to replace them by an
> > > > ams_delta_wait_ready() func.    
> > > 
> > > Default nand_wait() is used as ->waitfunc(), and ->dev_ready() returns R/B 
> > > GPIO pin status.  
> > 
> > Okay. Then it might make sense to provide a generic helper to poll a
> > gpio.
> > 
> > void nand_gpio_waitrdy(struct nand_chip *chip, struct gpio_desc *gpiod)
> > {
> > 	...
> > }  
> 
> How about a still more generic helper which accepts dev_ready() callback as an 
> argument?

Nope, I still prefer the GPIO based one. We'll see if others need a
a more generic helper, but I doubt it.