linux-kernel - Re: [mtd:nand/next 11/31] drivers/mtd/nand/raw/cadence-nand-controller.c:1893:4: error: implicit declaration of function 'ioread64

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: <20220922130028.67657957@xps-13>
Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2022 13:00:28 +0200
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     "Valentin Korenblit" <vkorenblit@...uans.com>,
        "kernel test robot" <lkp@...el.com>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        kbuild-all@...ts.01.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [mtd:nand/next 11/31]
 drivers/mtd/nand/raw/cadence-nand-controller.c:1893:4: error: implicit
 declaration of function 'ioread64_rep' is invalid in C99

Hi Arnd,

arnd@...db.de wrote on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 12:52:36 +0200:

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022, at 11:36 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > vkorenblit@...uans.com wrote on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 10:18:46 +0200:  
> >> 
> >> Correct, this was my initial idea. However, this driver should work
> >> with every architecture or do we limit the scope to arm/arm64/x86_64?  
> >
> > The driver should work on ARM and aarch64, I'm not aware of other
> > architectures with this IP.
> >
> > The driver should compile when COMPILE_TEST=y.  
> 
> It should also be written in a way that makes it plausible to
> use elsewhere. Since this is just a licensed IP core, there is
> a good chance that someone reused it on mips or riscv, or
> anything else.

Fair enough.

> >> >> I believe what Valentin wanted to achieve in the first place, was to
> >> >> use 64-bit accesses when relevant (otherwise it does not work).    
> >> > The width is read from a device specific register at
> >> > runtime, it is not related to the architecture you are
> >> > running on, presumably this is hardwired during the
> >> > design of an SoC, based on the capabilities of the DMA
> >> > engine:  
> >
> > Well, yes, but in the mean time 64-bit DMA width will never be
> > used on 32-bit platforms.  
> 
> Why? Most architectures (including x86 and arm) allow you to
> run a 32-bit kernel on a 64-bit SoC. While this is almost always
> a bad idea to actually do, a driver should be written to
> work correctly in this setup.

Oh right, I forgot about that.

> >> > This usually means the largest access that is valid for
> >> > reading from the FIFO, but usually smaller accesses work
> >> > as well, just slower.    
> >
> > Mmh, ok, that's interesting, thanks for the pointer.
> >
> > But in the mean time I am only half satisfied, because we plan to do
> > twice more accesses than needed _just_ because of a the COMPILE_TEST
> > constraint.  
> 
> In my example, I had an #ifdef so it would only fall back
> to 32-bit accesses on the 64-bit register when running an
> actual 32-bit kernel, but leaving the 64-bit case efficient.

All right, thanks for all your valuable feedback Arnd!

Cheers,
Miquèl