linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "spi: modify set_cs

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]

Message-ID: <20210930124630.GY4199@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 30 Sep 2021 13:46:30 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Dafna Hirschfeld <dafna.hirschfeld@...labora.com>
Cc:     kernel@...labora.com, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        enric.balletbo@...labora.com, dafna3@...il.com,
        Mason Zhang <Mason.Zhang@...iatek.com>,
        Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, wsd_upstream@...iatek.com,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "spi: modify set_cs_timing parameter"

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:36:01PM +0200, Dafna Hirschfeld wrote:
> hi, thanks for the fast feedback
> 
> On 30.09.21 14:25, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:07:00PM +0200, Dafna Hirschfeld wrote:
> > > This reverts commit 04e6bb0d6bb127bac929fb35edd2dd01613c9520.

> > Which is not what the commit message nor the paste of the full hash
> > claimed :/

> What is the paste of the full hash?

The above.

> Since the second commit is only a warning fixes I thought it is cumbersome to
> send two separate reverting patches. Should I?

No, you should write a proper commit log with (like I said) a normal
subject line - basically, follow the process in submitting-patches.rst.

> > Do we have any analysis as to why?  Do these devices use timing
> > parameters in some way for example, or do the values written out to the
> > device change in some way?

> > You've provided no analysis here so it's hard to tell if this is just
> > some random change that happens to change code generation slighly or if
> > there's some actual reason why this might fix something.  I'll note that
> > as far as I can see there are no users of this API upstream so I'm
> > guessing that you've got some out of tree consumer driver which uses the
> > API, it's possible that there was some error in updating that driver to
> > the new interface which is causing the issue.

> Actually the original commit not only change that callback 'set_cs_timing' but it also
> calls 'mtk_spi_set_hw_cs_timing' directly from the function "mtk_spi_prepare_message".
> So this actually influences all devices bound to this driver (in upstream)
> I did some printing and it does change values that are written to registers.

OK, so that's something that should have been in the commit log,
preferrably in a more detailed form that identifies what the change is.
However changing the values written out is clearly not the intent of the
patch and it is a substantially better API so can we not just fix things
so that the old values are written out?  Why are we jumping straight to
a revert here?

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