netdev - Re: [PATCH 14/15] can: tcan4x5x: Fix register range of first block

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]

Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2022 10:44:58 +0100
From:   Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To:     Markus Schneider-Pargmann <msp@...libre.com>
Cc:     Chandrasekar Ramakrishnan <rcsekar@...sung.com>,
        Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] can: tcan4x5x: Fix register range of first block

On 05.12.2022 10:30:13, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 03:28:10PM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> > On 16.11.2022 21:53:07, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote:
> > > According to the datasheet 0x1c is the last register in the first block,
> > > not register 0x2c.
> > 
> > The datasheet "SLLSF91A – DECEMBER 2018 – REVISED JANUARY 2020" says:
> > 
> > | 8.6.1 Device ID and Interrupt/Diagnostic Flag Registers: 16'h0000 to
> > | 16'h002F
> > 
> > While the last described register is at 0xc.
> 
> Sorry, not sure what I looked up here. The last described register is
> 0x10 SPI Error status mask in my datasheet:
> 'SLLSEZ5D – JANUARY 2018 – REVISED JUNE 2022'

The TCAN4550-Q1 variant has the 0x10 register documented, while the
TCAN4550 (w/o -Q1) doesn't have.

> I would prefer using the actual registers if that is ok with you, so
> 0x10 here because I assume the remaining registers have internal use or
> maybe don't exist at all?! If there is an undocumented register that
> needs to be used at some point we can still modify the ranges.

I'm fine with using 0x10 as the last register.

> Also it seems the existing ranges are following the same logic and don't
> list the whole range, just the documented registers.
> 
> The second range is wrong as well. The last register is 0x830, will
> fix.

IIRC I used the register ranges from the section titles ("8.6.1 Device
ID and Interrupt/Diagnostic Flag Registers: 16'h0000 to 16'h002F") when
I added the {wr,rd}_table.

Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                 | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Embedded Linux                   | https://www.pengutronix.de  |
Vertretung West/Dortmund         | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)