netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] net/fec: add dual fec support for mx28

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:06:20 +0100
From:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>
Cc:	gerg@...pgear.com, Greg Ungerer <gerg@...inux.org>,
	B32542@...escale.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	s.hauer@...gutronix.de, jamie@...reable.org, baruch@...s.co.il,
	w.sang@...gutronix.de, r64343@...escale.com, eric@...rea.com,
	bryan.wu@...onical.com, jamie@...ieiles.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, lw@...o-electronics.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] net/fec: add dual fec support for mx28

Hello,

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 03:48:05PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >  #if defined(CONFIG_M523x) || defined(CONFIG_M527x) || defined(CONFIG_M528x) || \
> > -    defined(CONFIG_M520x) || defined(CONFIG_M532x) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC)
> > +    defined(CONFIG_M520x) || defined(CONFIG_M532x) || \
> > +    defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) || defined(CONFIG_SOC_IMX28)
> I wonder what is excluded here.  FEC depends on
> 
> 	M523x || M527x || M5272 || M528x || M520x || M532x || \
> 	MACH_MX27 || ARCH_MX35 || ARCH_MX25 || ARCH_MX5 || SOC_IMX28
> 
> so the only difference is that the latter lists M5272 which seems a bit
> redundant in the presence of M527x.
M527x = {M5271, M5275}, so it seems to me that only M5272 is excluded
here.  I don't know if it's possible to have a kernel supporting M5272
and (e.g.) M527x.  If yes, does the driver work correct on M5272 then?

Greg, it seems to me that M5272 is the exception here, not all the
others.  Would it make sense to make the above read:

	#if !defined(CONFIG_M5272)

?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html