linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] spi: tegra210-quad: use device_reset_optional() instead of device

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: <20250325-delicate-kittiwake-of-emphasis-3eeb6c@leitao>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 09:56:10 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, jonathanh@...dia.com,
	skomatineni@...dia.com, Mark Brown <broonie@...ian.org>,
	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rmikey@...a.com, kernel-team@...a.com,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, noodles@...th.li,
	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
	Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] spi: tegra210-quad: use device_reset_optional()
 instead of device_reset()

On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 02:17:11PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 09:28:34AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > Hello Thierry,
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 01:40:44PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > Can you maybe help clarify at what point you start seeing errors induced
> > > by the recovery mechanism?
> > 
> > This is after a while. Something happen to QSPI and the warnings and
> > device reset failed start going haywire.
> > 
> > Most of the machines are fine, but, some get into this situation.
> 
> Is it always the same devices, or does it happen randomly?

We got this in two different and unrelated machines, already.

I want to come back to how the driver should behave. We probably want to
distinguish what is the correct behaviour we expect from the driver,
they are (IMO):

1) The reset handlers are NOT optional and the device should fail to
   probe.

2) The reset handlers ARE optional, and we should mark them as such.

Can you shed some light on what is the right behaviour we want to
implement?

>From what I am hearing, we are more inclined towards 2). Is this
correct?

Thanks for helping us to figure out this issue,
--breno