[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YhZ0vZxlp1VTgNG8@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 18:54:05 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, sashal@...nel.org,
david regan <dregan@...l.com>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
"open list:NAND FLASH SUBSYSTEM" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND stable 4.9] mtd: rawnand: brcmnand: Fixed
incorrect sub-page ECC status
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 09:44:31AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> From: david regan <dregan@...l.com>
>
> commit 36415a7964711822e63695ea67fede63979054d9 upstream
>
> The brcmnand driver contains a bug in which if a page (example 2k byte)
> is read from the parallel/ONFI NAND and within that page a subpage (512
> byte) has correctable errors which is followed by a subpage with
> uncorrectable errors, the page read will return the wrong status of
> correctable (as opposed to the actual status of uncorrectable.)
>
> The bug is in function brcmnand_read_by_pio where there is a check for
> uncorrectable bits which will be preempted if a previous status for
> correctable bits is detected.
>
> The fix is to stop checking for bad bits only if we already have a bad
> bits status.
>
> Fixes: 27c5b17cd1b1 ("mtd: nand: add NAND driver "library" for Broadcom STB NAND controller")
> Signed-off-by: david regan <dregan@...l.com>
> Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/trinity-478e0c09-9134-40e8-8f8c-31c371225eda-1643237024774@3c-app-mailcom-lxa02
> [florian: make patch apply to 4.14, file was renamed]
> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/brcmnand.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Why is this a RESEND? What happened with the first set?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists