| Message ID | 9019174.GYajdpGP8V@wuerfel |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | f9bdbd6c46c8ce0bb95f5b708a4a4a4b6b9a5917 |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:38:08PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > The nuc900_nand driver has always passed an incorrect register > address in its nuc900_check_rb() function, which cannot possibly > work, and in some configurations gives us a build warning: > > drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c: In function 'nuc900_check_rb': > drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c:27:23: warning: passing argument 1 of '__raw_readl' makes pointer from integer without a cast [-Wint-conversion] > #define REG_SMISR 0xac > drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c:118:20: note: in expansion of macro 'REG_SMISR' > val = __raw_readl(REG_SMISR); > > This makes sure we actually read from the register rather than > from (void *)0x000000ac in user space. > > I suspect nobody noticed this before because the nuc900_nand_devready() > function never gets called, or nobody uses this driver on an upstream > kernel. Possibly even both. Almost definitely not the first. That's an absolutely essential function for this driver (it doesn't have ->waitfunc(), so we use ->dev_ready() all the time). Quite likely the latter. > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c > index 220ddfcf29f5..dbc5b571c2bb 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c > @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static int nuc900_check_rb(struct nuc900_nand *nand) > { > unsigned int val; > spin_lock(&nand->lock); > - val = __raw_readl(REG_SMISR); > + val = __raw_readl(nand->reg + REG_SMISR); > val &= READYBUSY; > spin_unlock(&nand->lock); > Looks OK to me, though I kinda hate dragging on support for obviously-unused drivers... Brian
On Wednesday 13 January 2016 13:50:13 Brian Norris wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c > > index 220ddfcf29f5..dbc5b571c2bb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c > > @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static int nuc900_check_rb(struct nuc900_nand *nand) > > { > > unsigned int val; > > spin_lock(&nand->lock); > > - val = __raw_readl(REG_SMISR); > > + val = __raw_readl(nand->reg + REG_SMISR); > > val &= READYBUSY; > > spin_unlock(&nand->lock); > > > > Looks OK to me, though I kinda hate dragging on support for > obviously-unused drivers... Should we mark that driver in Kconfig as obviously broken then? Let's wait for Wan ZongShun to reply first, it's possible that the entire w90x900 platform has come to the point where we are better off removing it than fixing ancient bugs. Arnd
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:02:06PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 13 January 2016 13:50:13 Brian Norris wrote: > > > > Looks OK to me, though I kinda hate dragging on support for > > obviously-unused drivers... > > Should we mark that driver in Kconfig as obviously broken then? Well, it won't be obviously broken if I apply your patch... But if that's the right step toward removal, then I could be OK with that. > Let's wait for Wan ZongShun to reply first, it's possible that the > entire w90x900 platform has come to the point where we are better off > removing it than fixing ancient bugs. Sounds good. Brian
On Thursday 14 January 2016 17:34:33 Wan Zongshun wrote: > -------- Original Message -------- > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:02:06PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> On Wednesday 13 January 2016 13:50:13 Brian Norris wrote: > >>> > >>> Looks OK to me, though I kinda hate dragging on support for > >>> obviously-unused drivers... > >> > >> Should we mark that driver in Kconfig as obviously broken then? > > > > Well, it won't be obviously broken if I apply your patch... But if > > that's the right step toward removal, then I could be OK with that. > > > >> Let's wait for Wan ZongShun to reply first, it's possible that the > >> entire w90x900 platform has come to the point where we are better off > >> removing it than fixing ancient bugs. > > > > Sounds good. > > Actually, Nuvoton should still leverage this upstream w90x900 codes for > their old and new arm chip BSP, but I am not sure their open source plan > for the new chip now, I will check with Nuvoton for this topic, and give > you feedback here, so please hold on its removal. Ok, sure. Thanks for the quick reply! I've had a look around at the current produce lineup, and it seems that nuc900 (w90x900) is still marketed, and as you say is similar to the n329 series. There has been one attempt to do a modern port for n329 in 2014 but it never got submitted. See http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.kernelnewbies/49077 and https://github.com/mpthompson/linux/tree/n329 The code looks rather nice, so it's a pity that the effort stalled, but it should not be hard for anyone to start out with Mike's tree and forward-port it to 4.5. Arnd
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:38:08PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > The nuc900_nand driver has always passed an incorrect register > address in its nuc900_check_rb() function, which cannot possibly > work, and in some configurations gives us a build warning: > > drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c: In function 'nuc900_check_rb': > drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c:27:23: warning: passing argument 1 of '__raw_readl' makes pointer from integer without a cast [-Wint-conversion] > #define REG_SMISR 0xac > drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c:118:20: note: in expansion of macro 'REG_SMISR' > val = __raw_readl(REG_SMISR); > > This makes sure we actually read from the register rather than > from (void *)0x000000ac in user space. > > I suspect nobody noticed this before because the nuc900_nand_devready() > function never gets called, or nobody uses this driver on an upstream > kernel. Possibly even both. > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Pushed to l2-mtd.git. Thanks.
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c index 220ddfcf29f5..dbc5b571c2bb 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static int nuc900_check_rb(struct nuc900_nand *nand) { unsigned int val; spin_lock(&nand->lock); - val = __raw_readl(REG_SMISR); + val = __raw_readl(nand->reg + REG_SMISR); val &= READYBUSY; spin_unlock(&nand->lock);
The nuc900_nand driver has always passed an incorrect register address in its nuc900_check_rb() function, which cannot possibly work, and in some configurations gives us a build warning: drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c: In function 'nuc900_check_rb': drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c:27:23: warning: passing argument 1 of '__raw_readl' makes pointer from integer without a cast [-Wint-conversion] #define REG_SMISR 0xac drivers/mtd/nand/nuc900_nand.c:118:20: note: in expansion of macro 'REG_SMISR' val = __raw_readl(REG_SMISR); This makes sure we actually read from the register rather than from (void *)0x000000ac in user space. I suspect nobody noticed this before because the nuc900_nand_devready() function never gets called, or nobody uses this driver on an upstream kernel. Possibly even both. Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>