linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dtc: Remove warning for I2C_OWN_SLAVE

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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 06:43:34 +0000
From:   Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc:     devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dtc: Remove warning for I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS

On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 06:39, Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au> wrote:
>
> dtc does a sanity check on reg properties that they are within the 10
> bit address range for i2c slave addresses. In the case of multi-master
> buses the binding may describe an address that the bus will listen on as
> a device. Do not warn when this flag is set.
>
> This fixes the following build warnings reported by Stephen:
>
> arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-bmc-facebook-yosemitev2.dts:126.11-130.4:
>   Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /ahb/apb/bus@...8a000/i2c-bus@...ipmb1@10:
>     I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000010"
> arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-bmc-facebook-yosemitev2.dts:128.3-30:
>   Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /ahb/apb/bus@...8a000/i2c-bus@...ipmb1@10:reg:
>     I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000010"
>
> Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
> ---
>  scripts/dtc/checks.c | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/dtc/checks.c b/scripts/dtc/checks.c
> index 4b3c486f1399..986754f858cf 100644
> --- a/scripts/dtc/checks.c
> +++ b/scripts/dtc/checks.c
> @@ -1022,6 +1022,8 @@ static void check_i2c_bus_bridge(struct check *c, struct dt_info *dti, struct no
>  }
>  WARNING(i2c_bus_bridge, check_i2c_bus_bridge, NULL, &addr_size_cells);
>
> +#define I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS  (1 << 30)
> +
>  static void check_i2c_bus_reg(struct check *c, struct dt_info *dti, struct node *node)
>  {
>         struct property *prop;
> @@ -1044,6 +1046,8 @@ static void check_i2c_bus_reg(struct check *c, struct dt_info *dti, struct node
>         }
>
>         reg = fdt32_to_cpu(*cells);
> +       /* Ingore I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS */

Obviously that should say "Ignore", and similarly below. The wonders
of Friday afternoon patches.

> +       reg &= ~I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS;
>         snprintf(unit_addr, sizeof(unit_addr), "%x", reg);
>         if (!streq(unitname, unit_addr))
>                 FAIL(c, dti, node, "I2C bus unit address format error, expected \"%s\"",
> @@ -1051,6 +1055,8 @@ static void check_i2c_bus_reg(struct check *c, struct dt_info *dti, struct node
>
>         for (len = prop->val.len; len > 0; len -= 4) {
>                 reg = fdt32_to_cpu(*(cells++));
> +               /* Ingore I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS */
> +               reg &= ~I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS;
>                 if (reg > 0x3ff)
>                         FAIL_PROP(c, dti, node, prop, "I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got \"0x%x\"",
>                                   reg);
> --
> 2.26.2
>