netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: sh_eth: add support for SH7786

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:   Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:55:15 +0300
From:   Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To:     Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Niklas Söderlund 
        <niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Simon Horman <horms+renesas@...ge.net.au>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: sh_eth: add support for SH7786

Hello!

On 12/08/2017 06:40 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:

>>>>>> This commit adds the sh_eth_cpu_data structure that describes the
>>>>>> SH7786 variant of the IP.
>>>>>
>>>>>       The manual seems to be unavailable, so I have to trust you. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, sadly. However, if you tell me what to double check, I'd be happy
>>>> to do so.
>>>
>>>      I have the manual now, will check against it...
>>>      DaveM, I'm retracting my ACK for the time being.
>>
>>      Starting to look into the manual, the current patch is wrong. SH7786 SoC
>> was probably the 1st one to use what we thought was R-Car specific register
>> layout. Definite NAK on this version.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback. How do we proceed from there ? I don't have

    Please use SH_ETH_REG_FAST_RCAR for the register layout.

> access to a lot of datasheets of the different Renesas SoCs, so it's
> not easy to figure out which IP variant the SH7786 is using compared to
> other Renesas SoCs.

    I've already done that for you. :-)

> Just out of curiosity, which specific aspect makes you think the
> proposed patch is wrong ?

    Total Ether register/bit documentation rehaul done for SH7786/R-Car -- 
including the register (and bit) rename and moving the registers to different 
offsets...

> Have you noticed a specific register or field
> that isn't compatible with SH_ETH_REG_FAST_SH4 layout ?

    There are surely SH4 registers that don't exist on SH7786 -- like BCFRR, 
RTRATE, RPADIR, RBWAR, RDFAR, TBRAR, TDFAR...

> Note that my patch makes Ethernet work in practice on SH7784, I have
> root over NFS working as we speak.

   I don't doubt it...

> This certainly doesn't mean that the
> patch is entirely correct, but it definitely means that the
> SH_ETH_REG_FAST_SH4 is close enough to what the SH7786 is using :-)

    SH_ETH_REG_FAST_RCAR is definitely closer. :-)

> Thanks!
> 
> Thomas

MBR, Sergei