linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regmap: allow to define reg_update

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: <YYP03zJO7VVqHxmc@Ansuel-xps.localdomain>
Date:   Thu, 4 Nov 2021 15:57:35 +0100
From:   Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regmap: allow to define reg_update_bits for no bus
 configuration

On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 02:50:31PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 10:53:17PM +0100, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 09:29:11PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > > > I don't understand this change.  The point of the check for volatile
> > > > > there is that if the register isn't volatile then we need to ensure that
> > > > > the cache gets updated with any change that happens so we need to go
> > > > > through paths that include cache updates.  The presence or otherwise of
> > > > > a bus does not seem at all relevant here.
> 
> > I think I'm missing something. The user case is a driver that
> > have CACHE DISABLED. The !map->bus check is added just to limit this to
> > a no bus configuration not to permit this with CACHE enabled. The limit
> > I was referring was in the init function where the update_bits is
> > assigned to the map. I honestly didn't notice that anything with cache
> > disabled was flagged as volatile.
> 
> In what way would the presence or absence of a bus be relevant to a
> decision about being able to safely use an _update_bits() operation?
>

No reason. It was just to make changes only to a no bus configuration
and doesn't cause any problem/error to other regmap configuration.
(since currently we can declare a custom update_bits function only for
bus configuration)

> > So the rest of the changes permit to declare a update_bits function
> > for a no bus configuration is good?
> 
> Probably, I'd need to look again.

Let me send a v2 so you can check the final patch.

-- 
	Ansuel