linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] [PATCH v5 02/10] mfd: mt6397: extract irq related code from core driver

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]

Message-ID: <0A87F427-2D81-412A-9549-09A51A021799@public-files.de>
Date:   Fri, 23 Aug 2019 17:26:30 +0200
From:   Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@...lic-files.de>
To:     linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Hsin-Hsiung Wang <hsin-hsiung.wang@...iatek.com>
CC:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        srv_heupstream@...iatek.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Richard Fontana <rfontana@...hat.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        René van Dorst <opensource@...rst.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@...iatek.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] [PATCH v5 02/10] mfd: mt6397: extract irq related code from core driver



Am 23. August 2019 16:56:13 MESZ schrieb Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>:
>are you sure that you provide the correct chip_id here? I saw 0x2023
>(if I
>remember correctly), while this switch checks for 0x23, 0x91 and 0x97,
>so I'm
>not sure if the problem really lies here. I didn't dig into the code to
>find out
>how the chip_id is created.

The chip-id 0x2023 is reported with 5.3-rc5, next-code says 0x0. So i guess the chipid is read out/calculated the wrong way. If calculation is not changed the read is changed compared to 5.3