linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix issues with command queuing in arasan controllers

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: <b34a07a7-8814-f1dd-3a90-5009af6b9eeb@ti.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Jan 2020 17:34:34 +0530
From:   Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@...com>
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix issues with command queuing in arasan controllers

Hi Adrian,

On 08/01/20 5:29 pm, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 8/01/20 1:49 pm, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>> Adrian,
>>
>> On 08/01/20 5:12 pm, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> On 8/01/20 1:30 pm, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 30/12/19 2:53 pm, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>>>>> In some Arasan SDHCI controllers, after tuning, the tuning pattern data
>>>>> is leftover in the sdhci buffer. This leads to issues with future data
>>>>> commands, especially when command queuing is enabled. The following
>>>>> patches help fix this issue by resetting data lines after tuning is
>>>>> finished. The first two patches have been tested with TI's am65x and
>>>>> j721e SoCs using the sdhci_am654 driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a strong suspicion that this is the same issue with
>>>>> the sdhci-of-arasan driver where they are forced to dump data from the
>>>>> buffer before enabling command queuing. I need help from someone with a
>>>>> compatible platform to test this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had some discussions with our hardware team and they say we should be
>>>> asserting both SRC and SRD reset after tuning to start from a clean
>>>> state. Will update the patches to do that in v2.
>>>
>>> Can you use the ->execute_tuning() for that instead of a quirk?
>>>
>>
>> ->platform_execute_tuning() is called before __sdhci_execute_tuning(). I
>> need this to be done after that. Should I add a post_tuning() callback?
> 
> I meant hook host->mmc_host_ops.execute_tuning and call
> sdhci_execute_tuning() and then sdhci_reset(), like in intel_execute_tuning().
> 

Ok. Makes sense.

Thanks,
Faiz