| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <be75db7d-a698-43ab-b29e-dea3a0f60ba2@broadcom.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 12:05:18 -0800
From: William Zhang <william.zhang@...adcom.com>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc: Linux MTD List <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux ARM List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Broadcom Kernel List <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
f.fainelli@...il.com, kursad.oney@...adcom.com, joel.peshkin@...adcom.com,
anand.gore@...adcom.com, dregan@...l.com, kamal.dasu@...adcom.com,
tomer.yacoby@...adcom.com, dan.beygelman@...adcom.com,
David Regan <dregan@...adcom.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 12/13] mtd: rawnand: brcmnand: Add support for getting
ecc setting from strap
On 2/26/24 00:36, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> william.zhang@...adcom.com wrote on Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:25:09 -0800:
>
>> Hi Miquel,
>>
>> On 2/23/24 01:18, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>>> Hi William,
>>>
>>> william.zhang@...adcom.com wrote on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 19:47:57 -0800:
>>>
>>>> BCMBCA broadband SoC based board design does not specify ecc setting in
>>>> dts but rather use the SoC NAND strap info to obtain the ecc strength
>>>> and spare area size setting. Add brcm,nand-ecc-use-strap dts propety for
>>>> this purpose and update driver to support this option. However these two
>>>> options can not be used at the same time.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: William Zhang <william.zhang@...adcom.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: David Regan <dregan@...adcom.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>> FYI I did not receive patches 7, 8, 9, which makes the series numbering
>>> very odd.
>>>
>> I was using the get maintainer script mainly and it sends to the linux MTD list. I will add your email directly next time.
>
> Yes, I prefer to be in Cc of the whole series, please.
>
Sure. And thanks for applying other patches. Do you want me to just
send a new single patch for the update?
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v6:
>>>> - Combine the ecc step size and ecc strength into one get function
>>>> - Treat it as error condition if both brcm,nand-ecc-use-strap and nand
>>>> ecc dts properties are set
>>>> - Add intermediate steps to get the sector size bitfield
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v5: None
>>>> Changes in v4:
>>>> - Update the comments for ecc setting selection
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v3: None
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> - Minor cosmetic fixes
>>>>
>>>> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 77 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
>>>> index ef7d340475be..e8ffc283b365 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
>>>> @@ -1038,6 +1038,22 @@ static inline int brcmnand_sector_1k_shift(struct brcmnand_controller *ctrl)
>>>> return -1;
>>>> }
>>>> >> +static int brcmnand_get_sector_size_1k(struct brcmnand_host *host)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct brcmnand_controller *ctrl = host->ctrl;
>>>> + int sector_size_bit = brcmnand_sector_1k_shift(ctrl);
>>>> + u16 acc_control_offs = brcmnand_cs_offset(ctrl, host->cs,
>>>> + BRCMNAND_CS_ACC_CONTROL);
>>>> + u32 acc_control;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (sector_size_bit < 0)
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + acc_control = nand_readreg(ctrl, acc_control_offs);
>>>> +
>>>> + return (acc_control & BIT(sector_size_bit)) >> sector_size_bit;
>>>
>>> FIELD_PREP, FIELD_GET, *please*.
>> You probably missed my reply to your comments on the same patch in v5. Here is the link for the post in case it lost in your email:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/c145b90c-e9f0-4d82-94cc-baf7bfda5954@gmail.com/T/#m1d911d2f119f3bd345c575a81b60bc2bd8c461eb
>
> I didn't miss it, but the reason does not sound legitimate to me.
> Please work on it, it will be so much cleaner.
>
I understand FIELD_PREP/GET is the preferred way of linux accessing the
register fields but it requires a constant MASK value and does not apply
to our case as we have different versions of the register and have
different mask. There is way to workaround it. i.e defining the
multiple constants directly and using these macros with if/else based on
reg version. But it is not clean and since we already have helper
functions that handle and return different shift/mask value, I see this
is a perfect way for our situation and can adapt to future reg version
change easily and cleanly.
>> The mask is not constant here and cause build errors.
>>>
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static void brcmnand_set_sector_size_1k(struct brcmnand_host *host, int val)
>>>> {
>>>> struct brcmnand_controller *ctrl = host->ctrl;
>>>> @@ -1055,6 +1071,43 @@ static void brcmnand_set_sector_size_1k(struct brcmnand_host *host, int val)
>>>> nand_writereg(ctrl, acc_control_offs, tmp);
>>>> }
>>>> >> +static int brcmnand_get_spare_size(struct brcmnand_host *host)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct brcmnand_controller *ctrl = host->ctrl;
>>>> + u16 acc_control_offs = brcmnand_cs_offset(ctrl, host->cs,
>>>> + BRCMNAND_CS_ACC_CONTROL);
>>>> + u32 acc = nand_readreg(ctrl, acc_control_offs);
>>>> +
>>>> + return (acc & brcmnand_spare_area_mask(ctrl));
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void brcmnand_get_ecc_settings(struct brcmnand_host *host, struct nand_chip *chip)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct brcmnand_controller *ctrl = host->ctrl;
>>>> + u16 acc_control_offs = brcmnand_cs_offset(ctrl, host->cs,
>>>> + BRCMNAND_CS_ACC_CONTROL);
>>>> + int sector_size_1k = brcmnand_get_sector_size_1k(host);
>>>> + int spare_area_size, ecc_level;
>>>> + u32 acc;
>>>> +
>>>> + spare_area_size = brcmnand_get_spare_size(host);
>>>> + acc = nand_readreg(ctrl, acc_control_offs);
>>>> + ecc_level = (acc & brcmnand_ecc_level_mask(ctrl)) >> ctrl->ecc_level_shift;
>>>
>>> ditto
>>>
>>>> + if (sector_size_1k)
>>>> + chip->ecc.strength = ecc_level * 2;
>>>> + else if (spare_area_size == 16 && ecc_level == 15)
>>>> + chip->ecc.strength = 1; /* hamming */
>>>> + else
>>>> + chip->ecc.strength = ecc_level;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (chip->ecc.size == 0) {
>>>> + if (sector_size_1k < 0)
>>>
>>> Should be <= 0 I guess
>>>
>>>> + chip->ecc.size = 512;
>>>> + else
>>>> + chip->ecc.size = 512 << sector_size_1k;
>>>
>>> What is this? Are you expecting sector_size_1k to be 0 or 1
>>> and thus multiply 512 by two?
>>>
>> Explained in the same post above. Sector_size_1k can be negative number for error condition where we default to 512 step size. Otherwise 0 for 512 and 1 for 1K which the above shift takes care of.
>
> The logic is unclear, unnatural. Please simplify. You have the
> possibility to change all the driver, so please simplify and clarify
> the logic.
>
Will update.
>>> Please just use:
>>> chip->ecc.size = SZ_1K;
>>>
>
> Thanks,
> Miquèl
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4212 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists