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: <9ba1722a-8dd7-4d6d-bade-b4c702c8387f@lunn.ch> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:30:37 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> To: Marek BehĂșn <marek.behun@....cz> Cc: Gustav Ekelund <gustav.ekelund@...s.com>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, kernel@...s.com, Gustav Ekelund <gustaek@...s.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Reset mv88e6393x watchdog register > > +static int mv88e6393x_watchdog_action(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int irq) > > +{ > > + mv88e6390_watchdog_action(chip, irq); > > + > > + mv88e6xxx_g2_write(chip, MV88E6390_G2_WDOG_CTL, > > + MV88E6390_G2_WDOG_CTL_UPDATE | > > + MV88E6390_G2_WDOG_CTL_PTR_EVENT); > > + > > + return IRQ_HANDLED; > > +} > > Shouldn't this update be in .irq_setup() method? In the commit message > you're saying that the problem is that bits aren't cleared with SW > reset. So I would guess that the change should be in the setup of > watchdog IRQ, not in IRQ action? I think it is a bit more complex than that. At least for the 6352, which i just looked at the data sheet, the interrupt bits are listed as "ROC". Which is missing from the list of definitions, but seems to mean Read Only, Clear on read. So even if it was not cleared on software reset, it would only fire once, and then be cleared. The problem description here is that it does not clear on read, it needs an explicit write. Which suggests Marvell changed it for the 6393. So i have a couple of questions: 1) Is this new behaviour limited to the 6393, or does the 6390 also need this write? 2) What about other interrupts? Is this the only one which has changed behaviour? Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists