linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Sat, 13 Oct 2018 08:05:42 +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: [PATCH v2 2/2] mtd: rawnand: ams-delta: Use ->exec_op()

Hi Janusz,

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 22:41:01 +0200
Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com> wrote:

> Replace legacy callbacks with ->select_chip() and ->exec_op().
> 
> In order to remove any references to legacy structure members, use of 
> .IO_ADDR_R/W has been replaced wit runtime calculations based on

				 ^ with

> priv->io_base.

Can we do that in 2 steps?

1/ Stop using .IO_ADDR_R/W
2/ Convert the driver to ->exec_op()

> 
> Suggested-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
> Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com>
> ---

[...]

> -static int ams_delta_nand_ready(struct nand_chip *this)
> +static int ams_delta_exec_op(struct nand_chip *this,
> +			     const struct nand_operation *op, bool check_only)
>  {
>  	struct ams_delta_nand *priv = nand_get_controller_data(this);
> +	const struct nand_op_instr *instr;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +

You should have:

	if (check_only)
		return 0;

Other than that, the conversion looks good, so you can add

Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com> once you've
addressed my comments.

Regards,

Boris

> +	for (instr = op->instrs; instr < op->instrs + op->ninstrs; instr++) {
> +
> +		switch (instr->type) {
> +		case NAND_OP_CMD_INSTR:
> +			gpiod_set_value(priv->gpiod_cle, 1);
> +			ams_delta_write_buf(priv, &instr->ctx.cmd.opcode, 1);
> +			gpiod_set_value(priv->gpiod_cle, 0);
> +			break;
> +
> +		case NAND_OP_ADDR_INSTR:
> +			gpiod_set_value(priv->gpiod_ale, 1);
> +			ams_delta_write_buf(priv, instr->ctx.addr.addrs,
> +					    instr->ctx.addr.naddrs);
> +			gpiod_set_value(priv->gpiod_ale, 0);
> +			break;
> +
> +		case NAND_OP_DATA_IN_INSTR:
> +			ams_delta_read_buf(priv, instr->ctx.data.buf.in,
> +					   instr->ctx.data.len);
> +			break;
> +
> +		case NAND_OP_DATA_OUT_INSTR:
> +			ams_delta_write_buf(priv, instr->ctx.data.buf.out,
> +					    instr->ctx.data.len);
> +			break;
> +
> +		case NAND_OP_WAITRDY_INSTR:
> +			ret = priv->gpiod_rdy ?
> +			      nand_gpio_waitrdy(this, priv->gpiod_rdy,
> +						instr->ctx.waitrdy.timeout_ms) :
> +			      nand_soft_waitrdy(this,
> +						instr->ctx.waitrdy.timeout_ms);
> +			break;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (ret)
> +			break;
> +	}
>  
> -	return gpiod_get_value(priv->gpiod_rdy);
> +	return ret;
>  }