src_ssync_features field is only 1 byte large, and the 4th reserved area
is actually 8 bytes large.
Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <[email protected]>
Fixes d1e1f4e42b5 ("mtd: nand: add support for reading ONFI parameters from NAND device")
Cc: <[email protected]> #v2.6.37+
---
include/linux/mtd/nand.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/nand.h b/include/linux/mtd/nand.h
index 5a9d1d4..93fc372 100644
--- a/include/linux/mtd/nand.h
+++ b/include/linux/mtd/nand.h
@@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ struct nand_onfi_params {
__le16 t_r;
__le16 t_ccs;
__le16 src_sync_timing_mode;
- __le16 src_ssync_features;
+ u8 src_ssync_features;
__le16 clk_pin_capacitance_typ;
__le16 io_pin_capacitance_typ;
__le16 input_pin_capacitance_typ;
@@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ struct nand_onfi_params {
u8 driver_strength_support;
__le16 t_int_r;
__le16 t_ald;
- u8 reserved4[7];
+ u8 reserved4[8];
/* vendor */
__le16 vendor_revision;
--
2.1.4
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:23:07AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> src_ssync_features field is only 1 byte large, and the 4th reserved area
> is actually 8 bytes large.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <[email protected]>
> Fixes d1e1f4e42b5 ("mtd: nand: add support for reading ONFI parameters from NAND device")
> Cc: <[email protected]> #v2.6.37+
Did you see an actual problem from this? (And is this deserving of
stable?) I could imagine an out-of-tree driver might try to use t_ald
(which should actually be t_adl, right?) and get the wrong value. But no
one does that in-tree yet.
> ---
> include/linux/mtd/nand.h | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/nand.h b/include/linux/mtd/nand.h
> index 5a9d1d4..93fc372 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mtd/nand.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mtd/nand.h
> @@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ struct nand_onfi_params {
> __le16 t_r;
> __le16 t_ccs;
> __le16 src_sync_timing_mode;
> - __le16 src_ssync_features;
> + u8 src_ssync_features;
> __le16 clk_pin_capacitance_typ;
> __le16 io_pin_capacitance_typ;
> __le16 input_pin_capacitance_typ;
> @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ struct nand_onfi_params {
> u8 driver_strength_support;
> __le16 t_int_r;
> __le16 t_ald;
> - u8 reserved4[7];
> + u8 reserved4[8];
>
> /* vendor */
> __le16 vendor_revision;
Patch looks good.
Brian
Hi Brian,
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:17:29 -0800
Brian Norris <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:23:07AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > src_ssync_features field is only 1 byte large, and the 4th reserved area
> > is actually 8 bytes large.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <[email protected]>
> > Fixes d1e1f4e42b5 ("mtd: nand: add support for reading ONFI parameters from NAND device")
> > Cc: <[email protected]> #v2.6.37+
>
> Did you see an actual problem from this? (And is this deserving of
> stable?) I could imagine an out-of-tree driver might try to use t_ald
> (which should actually be t_adl, right?)
Yes, should be t_adl, not t_ald. Do you want me to send another patch
for that, or will you take care of it?
> and get the wrong value. But no
> one does that in-tree yet.
Fair enough, we can just drop the stable and fixes tag. Do you want me
to resend it?
Best Regards,
Boris
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:33:18AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:17:29 -0800
> Brian Norris <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:23:07AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > src_ssync_features field is only 1 byte large, and the 4th reserved area
> > > is actually 8 bytes large.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <[email protected]>
> > > Fixes d1e1f4e42b5 ("mtd: nand: add support for reading ONFI parameters from NAND device")
> > > Cc: <[email protected]> #v2.6.37+
> >
> > Did you see an actual problem from this? (And is this deserving of
> > stable?) I could imagine an out-of-tree driver might try to use t_ald
> > (which should actually be t_adl, right?)
>
> Yes, should be t_adl, not t_ald. Do you want me to send another patch
> for that, or will you take care of it?
I'll send a quick patch.
> > and get the wrong value. But no
> > one does that in-tree yet.
>
> Fair enough, we can just drop the stable and fixes tag. Do you want me
> to resend it?
I presume this means you didn't see any actual problems caused by this
patch, other than new development referencing it?
Applied without the stable tag. I kept the fixes tag.
Thanks,
Brian
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:05:10 -0800
Brian Norris <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:33:18AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:17:29 -0800
> > Brian Norris <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:23:07AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > src_ssync_features field is only 1 byte large, and the 4th reserved area
> > > > is actually 8 bytes large.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <[email protected]>
> > > > Fixes d1e1f4e42b5 ("mtd: nand: add support for reading ONFI parameters from NAND device")
> > > > Cc: <[email protected]> #v2.6.37+
> > >
> > > Did you see an actual problem from this? (And is this deserving of
> > > stable?) I could imagine an out-of-tree driver might try to use t_ald
> > > (which should actually be t_adl, right?)
> >
> > Yes, should be t_adl, not t_ald. Do you want me to send another patch
> > for that, or will you take care of it?
>
> I'll send a quick patch.
>
> > > and get the wrong value. But no
> > > one does that in-tree yet.
> >
> > Fair enough, we can just drop the stable and fixes tag. Do you want me
> > to resend it?
>
> I presume this means you didn't see any actual problems caused by this
> patch, other than new development referencing it?
Yep, I noticed the problem when playing with the driver strength
feature.
>
> Applied without the stable tag. I kept the fixes tag.
>
> Thanks,
> Brian
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com