Hi Gustavo, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu, 11 Apr 2019 17:20:31 -0500: > On 4/11/19 5:10 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Hi Gustavo, > > > > "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu, 11 Apr > > 2019 13:30:31 -0500: > > > >> Hi Miquel, > >> > >> On 2/5/19 6:55 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote: > >> [..] > >>>> @@ -3280,12 +3280,14 @@ static void onenand_check_features(struct mtd_info *mtd) > >>>> if ((this->version_id & 0xf) == 0xe) > >>>> this->options |= ONENAND_HAS_NOP_1; > >>>> } > >>>> + /* fall through */ > >>>> > >>>> case ONENAND_DEVICE_DENSITY_2Gb: > >>>> /* 2Gb DDP does not have 2 plane */ > >>>> if (!ONENAND_IS_DDP(this)) > >>>> this->options |= ONENAND_HAS_2PLANE; > >>>> this->options |= ONENAND_HAS_UNLOCK_ALL; > >>>> + /* fall through */ > >>> > >>> This looks strange. > >>> > >>> In ONENAND_DEVICE_DENSITY_2Gb: > >>> ONENAND_HAS_UNLOCK_ALL is set unconditionally. > >>> > >>> But then, under ONENAND_DEVICE_DENSITY_1Gb, the same option is set only > >>> if process is evaluated to true. > >>> > >>> Same problem with ONENAND_HAS_2PLANE: > >>> - it is set in ONENAND_DEVICE_DENSITY_4Gb only if ONENAND_IS_DDP() > >>> - it is unset in ONENAND_DEVICE_DENSITY_2Gb only if !ONENAND_IS_DDP() > >>> > >>> Maybe this portion should be reworked because I am unsure if this is a > >>> missing fall through or a bug. > >>> > >> > >> I wonder if you had the chance to take a look into this piece of code. > >> > >> Thanks > >> -- > >> Gustavo > > > > What do you mean? > > > > You commented that the piece of code above should be reworked. So, it wasn't > clear to me who was going to do that; and that's why I'm asking if you took > a look into it and finally determine whether we are dealing with an actual > bug or a false positive. Yes please do it, I don't have the time and I don't plan to do it myself. Thanks, Miquèl ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/