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? -- Jagan. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
