linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] mtd: rawnand: Add support Macronix Block Protection function

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:23:57 +0800
From:   masonccyang@...c.com.tw
To:     unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Cc:     bbrezillon@...nel.org, computersforpeace@...il.com,
        dwmw2@...radead.org, frieder.schrempf@...tron.de,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, juliensu@...c.com.tw,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com, marek.vasut@...il.com,
        "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, richard@....at,
        tglx@...utronix.de, vigneshr@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] mtd: rawnand: Add support Macronix Block Protection
 function

Hi Miquel,

> > > > Then fill-in these two hooks from the manufacturer code, without 
the
> > > > postponed init.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > But in the final of nand_scan_tail(), mtd->_lock/_unlock will be
> > > filled by NULL, right ?
> > 
> > The NAND core should set mtd->_lock/_unlock() to NAND specific hooks 
so
> > that the MTD layer is abstracted and and drivers do not see it. Then,
> > in the NAND helper, either there is no specific hook defined by a
> > manufacturer driver and you return -ENOTSUPP, or you execute the
> > defined hook.
> 
> okay, patch specific manufacturer _lock/_unlock driver
> in nand_manufacturer_init();
> 
> and in the final of nand_scan_tail()
> if (!mtd->_lock)
>  mtd->_lock = NULL;
> if (!mtd->_unlock)
>  mtd->_unlock = NULL;

I'm still considering of post_init() in nand_scan_tail() for
MTD layer default call-back function replacement because
there would be more call-back functions need it.
i.e., 
MTD->_lock/_unlokc
MTD->_suspend/_resume
NTD->_point/_unpoint
...

actually, my patch series are including MTD->_locl/_unlock and 
MTD->_suspend/_resume. how do you think ?

thanks for your time & comments.
Mason

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information 
and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be 
reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail 
(and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive 
this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as 
well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be 
informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is 
prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. 
Thank you for your attention and cooperation.

Macronix International Co., Ltd.

=====================================================================

============================================================================

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail (and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. Thank you for your attention and cooperation.

Macronix International Co., Ltd.

=====================================================================