linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] UHCI：adjust zhaoxin UHCI controllers OverCurrent bit value

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: <ZEDyWC7GsbcEn7UK@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:05:44 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Weitao Wang <WeitaoWang-oc@...oxin.com>
Cc:     stern@...land.harvard.edu, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tonywwang@...oxin.com,
        weitaowang@...oxin.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UHCI：adjust zhaoxin UHCI
 controllers OverCurrent bit value

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 07:14:45PM +0800, Weitao Wang wrote:
> Over Current condition is not standardized in the UHCI spec.
> Zhaoxin UHCI controllers report OverCurrent bit active off.
> Intel controllers report it active on, so we'll adjust the bit value.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Weitao Wang <WeitaoWang-oc@...oxin.com>

Note, your Subject: line has odd characters in it, can you rewrite it to
just use ascii?  I think it's the '：' character which should be ':',
right?

> ---
>  drivers/usb/host/uhci-pci.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/uhci-pci.c b/drivers/usb/host/uhci-pci.c
> index 3592f757fe05..177e3c2aa287 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/uhci-pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/uhci-pci.c
> @@ -126,6 +126,10 @@ static int uhci_pci_init(struct usb_hcd *hcd)
>  	if (to_pci_dev(uhci_dev(uhci))->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_VIA)
>  		uhci->oc_low = 1;
>  
> +	/* ZHAOXIN controllers report OverCurrent bit active off. */
> +	if (to_pci_dev(uhci_dev(uhci))->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_ZHAOXIN)
> +		uhci->oc_low = 1;
> +

This should also go to the stable kernels, right?

But a new UHCI controller?  And this affects all of them?  And why is
Intel an issue here (as you mention in the changelog text)?

thanks,

greg k-h