On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:13:32 +0300 Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/17/2018 04:36 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > As documented in spi-mem.h, spi_mem_op->data.buf.{in,out} must be > > DMA-able, and commit 4120f8d158ef ("mtd: spi-nor: Use the spi_mem_xx() > > API") failed to follow this rule as buffers passed to > > ->{read,write}_reg() are usually placed on the stack. > > > > Fix that by allocating a scratch buffer and copying the data in there > > before passing it to the spi-mem layer. > > > > Fixes: 4120f8d158ef ("mtd: spi-nor: Use the spi_mem_xx() API") > > Reported-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Note that the ->{read,write}() path is still buggy since nothing > > guarantees that buffers passed by the MTD layer to the SPI NOR layer > > are DMA-able, but this is a long-standing issue which we'll have to > > address at the spi-nor level (this layer can choose the bounce buffer > > size based on nor->page_size). > > --- > > drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c b/drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c > > index cbfafc453274..3b7fafa4bbd6 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c > > @@ -39,14 +39,22 @@ static int m25p80_read_reg(struct spi_nor *nor, u8 code, u8 *val, int len) > > struct spi_mem_op op = SPI_MEM_OP(SPI_MEM_OP_CMD(code, 1), > > SPI_MEM_OP_NO_ADDR, > > SPI_MEM_OP_NO_DUMMY, > > - SPI_MEM_OP_DATA_IN(len, val, 1)); > > + SPI_MEM_OP_DATA_IN(len, NULL, 1)); > > + void *scratchbuf; > > int ret; > > > > + scratchbuf = kmemdup(val, len, GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!scratchbuf) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + > > + op.data.buf.in = scratchbuf; > > ret = spi_mem_exec_op(flash->spimem, &op); > > if (ret < 0) > > dev_err(&flash->spimem->spi->dev, "error %d reading %x\n", ret, > > code); > > > > + kfree(scratchbuf); > > + > > Actually this makes things even worse: "unrecognized JEDEC id bytes: b1, > 74, 01" since we don't copy scratchbuf to original buffer and kmemdup > before bus read is needless :-) True :-). I'll fix that and send a v2. ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/