linux-kernel - Re: [Linux-stm32] [PATCH 1/1] mmc: mmci: add threaded irq to abort DPSM of non-functional state

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:   Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:20:17 +0100
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@...com>
Cc:     DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Linux-stm32] [PATCH 1/1] mmc: mmci: add threaded irq to abort
 DPSM of non-functional state

Hi Ludovic,

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 15:06, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@...com> wrote:
>
> hi Ulf
>
> just a gentleman ping about this thread.
>
> small summarize:
> This patch return an IRQ_WAKE_THREAD only when the variant is
> busy_timeout capable and a datatimeout occurs on R1B request.
>
> So the threaded irq is called only to treat this specific error.
> Normally, there is no impact on HW flow control or for legacy variants.

Yes, this should work.

>
> In your previous message, you seem to suggest using threaded irq to
> manage HW flow control (pio mode). But Like you mention below, the mmci
> legacy could timing sensitive.
>
> For the moment, I prefer to use the threaded irq just to manage this
> error. If needed, the irq threade could be extended later.
>
> What do you think about that?

Yes, that's fine!

I have another minor comment on the code, though, but posting that separately.

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe