linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] Revert "scsi: ufs: disable vccq if it's not needed by UFS device"

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

Message-ID: <b09a33a2-65fd-55b0-f3c4-1b071d086a22@free.fr>
Date:   Sat, 9 Feb 2019 10:54:09 +0100
From:   Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
To:     Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>,
        MSM <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        SCSI <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Pedro Sousa <pedrom.sousa@...opsys.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham <kishon@...com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Martin Petersen <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] Revert "scsi: ufs: disable vccq if it's not needed
 by UFS device"

On 09/02/2019 10:07, Avri Altman wrote:

> On 08/02/2019 23:20, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> This reverts commit 60f0187031c05e04cbadffb62f557d0ff3564490.
>>
>> Calling ufshcd_set_vccq_rail_unused() breaks UFS init on two boards.
>> I would say that vccq is *not* not needed.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
>
> Those tags got switched off.

What do you mean?

> I still think that If you are reverting the quirk implementation,
> you should remove the quirk listing as well.

You're right, of course. I just thought it could wait until
after this series was accepted, but I can fold it in v5, as
a follow-up patch.

> Also, as the v3 discussion held on several threads,
> and new people might be joining in, 
> maybe you could reply to this patch with a couple of sentences summing-up
> the various theories that this bring-up raised.

Will do in v5, either in the commit message, or in the
sub-text that is not committed.

Regards.