linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mtd: spi-nor: intel-spi: support chips without software sequencer

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:   Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:42:08 +0300
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>
Cc:     Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mtd: spi-nor: intel-spi: support chips without
 software sequencer

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 09:22:04AM +0000, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> On 2019-09-16 11:19, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 09:12:50AM +0000, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> >> On 2019-09-16 11:11, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 08:41:55PM +0000, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> >>>> Could someone please review this?
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2019-09-04 03:15, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> >>>>> Some flash controllers don't have a software sequencer. Avoid
> >>>>> configuring the register addresses for it, and double check
> >>>>> everywhere that its not accidentally trying to be used.
> >>>
> >>> All the supported types in intel_spi_init() set ->sregs so I don't see
> >>> how we could end up calling functions with that not set properly. Which
> >>> controller we are talking about here? CNL?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, see 2/2.
> > 
> > OK, thanks. Please mention that in the commit log as well.
> 
> It seems obvious to me that the need for a patch may be further
> explained by the next patch in the patch set.

Yes, that's fine but then you should make sure the intended reviewers
get to see all the patches in the series. For me I got only Cc'd on this
1/2 yesterday. I think I reviewed 2/2 some time ago.