linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 2/3] fpga: microchip-spi: add Microchip MPF FPGA manager

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: <20220530142632.3a6wgxbpwjd6a6kh@x260>
Date:   Mon, 30 May 2022 17:26:32 +0300
From:   Ivan Bornyakov <i.bornyakov@...rotek.ru>
To:     Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com
Cc:     mdf@...nel.org, hao.wu@...el.com, yilun.xu@...el.com,
        trix@...hat.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        system@...rotek.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/3] fpga: microchip-spi: add Microchip MPF FPGA
 manager

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 02:26:18PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com wrote:
> On 30/05/2022 13:07, Ivan Bornyakov wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:22:26AM +0000, Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com wrote:
> >> On 26/05/2022 19:13, Ivan Bornyakov wrote:
> >>> +static int mpf_read_status(struct spi_device *spi)
> >>> +{
> >>> +       u8 status = 0, status_command = MPF_SPI_READ_STATUS;
> >>> +       /*
> >>> +        * Two identical SPI transfers are used for status reading.
> >>> +        * The reason is that the first one can be inadequate.
> >>> +        * We ignore it completely and use the second one.
> >>> +        */
> >>> +       struct spi_transfer xfers[] = {
> >>> +               [0 ... 1] = {
> >>> +                       .tx_buf = &status_command,
> >>> +                       .rx_buf = &status,
> >>> +                       .len = 1,
> >>> +                       .cs_change = 1,
> >>> +               }
> >>> +       };
> >>
> >> Hmm, I don't think that this is correct, or at least it is not
> >> correct from the polarfire /soc/ perspective. I was told that
> >> there was nothing different other than the envm between the
> >> programming for both devices - but this is another situation
> >> where I start to question that.
> >>
> >> When I run this code, ISC enable /never/ passes - failing due
> >> to timing out. I see something like this picture here:
> >> https://i.imgur.com/EKhd1S3.png
> >> You can see the 0x0B ISC enable coming through & then a status
> >> check after it.
> >>
> >> With the current code, the value of the "status" variable will
> >> be 0x0, given you are overwriting the first MISO value with the
> >> second. According to the hw guys, the spi hw status *should*
> >> only be returned on MISO in the first byte after SS goes low.
> >>
> >> If this is not the case for a non -soc part, which, as I said
> >> before, I don't have a board with the SPI programmer exposed
> >> for & I have been told is not the case then my comments can
> >> just be ignored entirely & I'll have some head scratching to
> >> do...
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Conor.
> >>
> > 
> > If I understood correctly, SS doesn't alter between two status reading
> > transactions despite .cs_change = 1. May be adding some .cs_change_delay
> > to spi_transfer struct can help with that?
> 
> D-oh - bug in the spi controller driver :)

So, no additional delay is needed?

> LGTM now, successfully programmed my PolarFire SoC with v12.
> I'd almost suggest adding a compatible for it too - but since
> the envm programming doesn't work I don't think that would be
> correct.
> 
> Tested-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
> 
> With a small comment about why it's using spi_sync_transfer():
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
> 

Thanks for your assistance, Conor!

> > 
> >>> +       int ret = spi_sync_transfer(spi, xfers, 2);
> >>> +
> >>> +       if ((status & MPF_STATUS_SPI_VIOLATION) ||
> >>> +           (status & MPF_STATUS_SPI_ERROR))
> >>> +               ret = -EIO;
> >>> +
> >>> +       return ret ? : status;
> >>> +}
> > 
>