[U-Boot] [PATCH] sf: Correct data types in stm_is_locked_sr()

[Jagan Teki]

Hi Albert,

On 12 March 2016 at 00:17, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot at aribaud.net> wrote:
> Hello Jagan,
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:09:37 +0530, Jagan Teki
> <jagannadh.teki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11 March 2016 at 07:50, Marek Vasut <marex at 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 <marex at denx.de>
>> > Cc: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>> > Cc: Jagan Teki <jteki at 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.