linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] spi: microchip-core: use XOR instead of ANDNOT to simplify the logic

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: <aS3XBW7D0vVmUTio@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 19:57:25 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@...il.com>,
	Prajna Rajendra Kumar <prajna.rajendrakumar@...rochip.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] spi: microchip-core: use XOR instead of ANDNOT to
 simplify the logic

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 04:08:57PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 10:19:00AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 08:30:43PM +0100, Jonas Gorski wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 7:56 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

...

> > > > -       if (spi->mode & SPI_MODE_X_MASK & ~spi->controller->mode_bits) {
> > > > +       if ((spi->mode ^ spi->controller->mode_bits) & SPI_MODE_X_MASK) {
> > > 
> > > This changes the behavior: if a bit isn't set in spi->mode that is set
> > > in mode_bits, it would have been previously accepted, now it's
> > > refused. E.g. controller has (SPI_CPOL | SPI_CPHA), device only
> > > SPI_CPOL. 0x1 & 0x3 & ~0x3 => 0, vs (0x1 ^ 0x3) & 0x3 => 0x2
> > > 
> > > If this is the actually intended behavior here, it is a fix and should
> > > carry a Fixes tag (the message below implies that).
> > 
> > Yeah, yesterday I was thinking about the same and I was confused by the logic
> > behind. As far as I understood the comments regarding mode provided by DT is
> > that the mode is configured in IP and may not be changed. And you are right
> > about the fix, but let's wait for Microchip to elaborate on the expected
> > behaviour.
> 
> Prajna is on holiday and I don't have a setup to actually test this on,
> but I'm 99% sure that you're both right and the original behaviour was
> wrong. There's a verilog parameter to the IP block that determines which
> motorola mode it is and a device that's not an exact match won't work.

Okay, let's not hurry up with this and wait for testing results.

> FWIW:
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>

> > > >                 dev_err(&spi->dev, "incompatible CPOL/CPHA, must match controller's Motorola mode\n");
> > > >                 return -EINVAL;
> > > >         }

Thanks for the review!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko