linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] scsi: ufs-qcom: Fix ufs RST

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]

Date:   Fri, 08 Jan 2021 16:15:11 +0800
From:   ziqichen@...eaurora.org
To:     Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     asutoshd@...eaurora.org, nguyenb@...eaurora.org,
        hongwus@...eaurora.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org,
        vinholikatti@...il.com, jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, saravanak@...gle.com, salyzyn@...gle.com,
        kwmad.kim@...sung.com, stanley.chu@...iatek.com,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] scsi: ufs-qcom: Fix ufs RST_n specs violation

On 2021-01-08 16:05, Can Guo wrote:
> On 2021-01-08 15:28, Ziqi Chen wrote:
>> As per specs, e.g, JESD220E chapter 7.2, while powering
>> off/on the ufs device, RST_n signal should be between
>> VSS(Ground) and VCCQ/VCCQ2.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Ziqi Chen <ziqichen@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c | 4 ++++
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> index 2206b1e..d8b896c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
>> @@ -582,6 +582,10 @@ static int ufs_qcom_suspend(struct ufs_hba *hba,
>> enum ufs_pm_op pm_op)
>>  		ufs_qcom_disable_lane_clks(host);
>>  		phy_power_off(phy);
>> 
>> +		/* reset the connected UFS device during power down */
>> +		if (host->device_reset)
>> +			gpiod_set_value_cansleep(host->device_reset, 1);
>> +
> 
> Instead of calling gpiod_set_value(1/0) directly,
> can we have a wrapper func for it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Can Guo.

Sure, it'll be better that way.

Best Regards,
Ziqi

> 
>>  	} else if (!ufs_qcom_is_link_active(hba)) {
>>  		ufs_qcom_disable_lane_clks(host);
>>  	}