On 12 March 2016 at 00:03, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > On 03/11/2016 07:07 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: >> On 11 March 2016 at 23:32, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >>> On 03/11/2016 06:34 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: >>>> On 11 March 2016 at 17:59, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >>>>> On 03/11/2016 07:39 AM, Jagan Teki wrote: >>>>>> On 11 March 2016 at 07:50, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >>>>>>> The stm_is_locked_sr() function is picked from Linux kernel. For reason >>>>>>> unknown, the 64bit data types used by the function and present in Linux >>>>>>> were replaced with 32bit unsigned ones, which causes trouble. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The testcase performed was done using ST M25P80 chip. >>>>>>> The command used was: >>>>>>> => sf protect unlock 0 0x10000 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The call chain starts in stm_unlock(), which calls stm_is_locked_sr() >>>>>>> with negative ofs argument. This works fine in Linux, where the "ofs" >>>>>>> is loff_t, which is signed long long, while this fails in U-Boot, where >>>>>>> "ofs" is u32 (unsigned int). Because of this signedness problem, the >>>>>>> expression past the return statement to be incorrectly evaluated to 1, >>>>>>> which in turn propagates back to stm_unlock() and results in -EINVAL. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The correction is very simple, just use the correctly sized data types >>>>>>> with correct signedness in the function to make it work as intended. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> >>>>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >>>>>>> Cc: Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> drivers/mtd/spi/spi_flash.c | 6 +++--- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/spi_flash.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/spi_flash.c >>>>>>> index 2ae2e3c..44d9e9b 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/spi_flash.c >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/spi_flash.c >>>>>>> @@ -665,7 +665,7 @@ int sst_write_bp(struct spi_flash *flash, u32 >>>>>>> offset, size_t len, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> #if defined(CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_STMICRO) || defined(CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_SST) >>>>>>> static void stm_get_locked_range(struct spi_flash *flash, u8 sr, >>>>>>> loff_t *ofs, >>>>>>> - u32 *len) >>>>>>> + u64 *len) >>>>>> >>>>>> What about uint64_t? >>>>> >>>>> This is now same as Linux too. >>>> >>>> I couldn't find it on l2-mtd and ML as well, it is still uint64_t >>>> >>> You are not supposed to use stdint.h types in either kernel or u-boot if >>> this is what you are concerned about. Thus, u64. >> >> No, I'm saying Linux is still using uint64_t and why can't we use the same? >> > Very quick google search gets you for example here: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/259313 > > Quote: > " > In short: having the kernel use the same names as user space is ACTIVELY > BAD, exactly because those names have standards-defined visibility, > which means that the kernel _cannot_ use them in all places anyway. So > don't even _try_. > "
Yes, clear I knew this too - but this protect code is a copy from Linux it better to be the same. ie only my concern. thanks! -- Jagan. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot