Hi Albert, On 12 March 2016 at 00:17, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net> wrote: > Hello Jagan, > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:09:37 +0530, Jagan Teki > <jagannadh.t...@gmail.com> 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? > > Well, the U-Boot coding style [1] suggest that we follow the Linux > coding style [2] which itself suggests [chapter 5, item (d)] that when
uNN types means uint32_t/uint64_t ? > uNN types are being used already in some code, then changes to this > code should keep on using uNN types. Sorry, I didn't understand here - if the code having these uNN types the changes to same uNN types? thanks! -- Jagan. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
