Hello Jagan, On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 00:41:25 +0530, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 ?
No, uNN means u8/u16/u32, but I'll admit that may not have been totally unambiguous. > > 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? It was better explained in the URL I gave. :) Basically: the Linux (and therefore U-Boot) coding style guide says if some code uses u8/u16/u32, then changes to this code should keep using u8/u16/u32; and here, drivers/mtd/spi/spi_flash.c uses u8, u16 and u32 so the wrongly-sized u32 should be changed into a u64, not into a uint64_t. > thanks! > -- > Jagan. Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
