linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mailbox: bcm-flexrm-mailbox: Fix FlexRM ring flush timeout issue

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 4 Jan 2019 10:45:21 -0800
From:   Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>
To:     Rayagonda Kokatanur <rayagonda.kokatanur@...adcom.com>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mailbox: bcm-flexrm-mailbox: Fix FlexRM ring flush
 timeout issue



On 1/3/2019 7:50 PM, Rayagonda Kokatanur wrote:
> RING_CONTROL reg was not written due to wrong address, hence all
> the subsequent ring flush was timing out.
> 
> Fixes: a371c10ea4b3 ("mailbox: bcm-flexrm-mailbox: Fix FlexRM ring flush sequence")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rayagonda Kokatanur <rayagonda.kokatanur@...adcom.com>
> Tested-by: Rayagonda Kokatanur <rayagonda.kokatanur@...adcom.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mailbox/bcm-flexrm-mailbox.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/bcm-flexrm-mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/bcm-flexrm-mailbox.c
> index d7a8ed7..57cd729 100644
> --- a/drivers/mailbox/bcm-flexrm-mailbox.c
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/bcm-flexrm-mailbox.c
> @@ -1396,9 +1396,9 @@ static void flexrm_shutdown(struct mbox_chan *chan)
>  
>  	/* Clear ring flush state */
>  	timeout = 1000; /* timeout of 1s */
> -	writel_relaxed(0x0, ring + RING_CONTROL);
> +	writel_relaxed(0x0, ring->regs + RING_CONTROL);
>  	do {
> -		if (!(readl_relaxed(ring + RING_FLUSH_DONE) &
> +		if (!(readl_relaxed(ring->regs + RING_FLUSH_DONE) &
>  		      FLUSH_DONE_MASK))
>  			break;
>  		mdelay(1);
> 

Looks good to me. Thanks.

Reviewed-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>