linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] spi: Add SPI_NO

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:   Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:47:39 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     "Ardelean, Alexandru" <alexandru.Ardelean@...log.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "Bogdan, Dragos" <Dragos.Bogdan@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] spi: Add SPI_NO_TX/RX support

On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 08:20:57AM +0000, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:

> > > > @@ -43,5 +43,7 @@
> > > >  #define        SPI_TX_OCTAL            0x2000          /* transmit with 8 wires */
> > > >  #define        SPI_RX_OCTAL            0x4000          /* receive with 8 wires */
> > > >  #define        SPI_3WIRE_HIZ           0x8000          /* high impedance turnaround
> > */
> > > > +#define        SPI_NO_TX               0x10000         /* no transmit wire */
> > > > +#define        SPI_NO_RX               0x20000         /* no receive wire */

> > > Is it really material for uAPI?
> > > Perhaps we may have something like
> > > SPI_MODE_USER_MASK in uAPI and
> > > in internal headers

> Hmm, in a way this could make sense for some SPIDEVs as well, to set these flags and get an error if they try to TX with the NO_TX flag set.
> Not really sure about this.
> Initially I mechanically added these here as an inertia to the previous patch which is just unifying the headers.

> Any other opinions? Thoughts?
> Mark?

spidev is hacky at the best of times...  It *is* probably better to only
have the usefully mainpulable modes exposed in uapi and then define the
rest internally though.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)