Re: hwrng on 82801EB/ER (ICH5/ICH5R) fails rngtest checks

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 7/27/06, Michael Buesch <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 21:44, gmu 2k6 wrote:
> > But could you try the following patch on top of latest git?
> > It's just a random test, but I think it's worth trying.
> > Let's see if it works around the issue.
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/char/hw_random/intel-rng.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/char/hw_random/intel-rng.c   2006-06-27 17:48:13.000000000 +0200
> > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/char/hw_random/intel-rng.c        2006-07-26 17:27:03.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -104,9 +104,14 @@
> >         int err = -EIO;
> >
> >         hw_status = hwstatus_get(mem);
> > +       hw_status = hwstatus_set(mem, hw_status & ~INTEL_RNG_ENABLED);
> > +       hw_status = hwstatus_set(mem, hw_status | INTEL_RNG_ENABLED);
> > +#if 0
> > +       hw_status = hwstatus_get(mem);
> >         /* turn RNG h/w on, if it's off */
> >         if ((hw_status & INTEL_RNG_ENABLED) == 0)
> >                 hw_status = hwstatus_set(mem, hw_status | INTEL_RNG_ENABLED);
> > +#endif
> >         if ((hw_status & INTEL_RNG_ENABLED) == 0) {
> >                 printk(KERN_ERR PFX "cannot enable RNG, aborting\n");
> >                 goto out;
>
> well as it didn't work, are you sure it was not intended to be more like this:
> @@ -104,9 +104,14 @@
>        int err = -EIO;
>
>        hw_status = hwstatus_get(mem);
> +       hw_status = hwstatus_set(mem, hw_status & ~INTEL_RNG_ENABLED);
> +       hw_status = hwstatus_set(mem, hw_status | INTEL_RNG_ENABLED);
> +#if 0
>        /* turn RNG h/w on, if it's off */
>        if ((hw_status & INTEL_RNG_ENABLED) == 0)
>                hw_status = hwstatus_set(mem, hw_status | INTEL_RNG_ENABLED);
> +#endif
>        if ((hw_status & INTEL_RNG_ENABLED) == 0) {
>                printk(KERN_ERR PFX "cannot enable RNG, aborting\n");
>                goto out;
>
> ?

I don't think that makes a difference to the generated code, does it?

I will test it now as you seem to be interested in the results.

actually I was just curious what sense it made to do
hw_status = hwstatus_get(mem);
twice, though I'm not informed about the semantics there so I could be wrong
in interpreting the API on that level.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux