netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next] microchipT1phy: Add driver for Microchip LAN87XX T1 PHYs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:24:41 +0000
From:   <Nisar.Sayed@...rochip.com>
To:     <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     <f.fainelli@...il.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next] microchipT1phy: Add driver for Microchip
 LAN87XX T1 PHYs

Hi Andrew,

> > Fine, will change the filename.
> 
> > The reason for moving to separate file is that we have a series of
> > T1 standard PHYs, which support cable diagnostics, signal quality
> > indicator(SQI) and sleep and wakeup (TC10) support etc. we planned to
> > keep all T1 standard PHYs separate to support additional features
> > supported by these PHYs.
> 
> Is there anything shared with the other microchip PHYs? If there is potential
> for code sharing, you should do it.

Yes, there will be no code sharing between existing microchip PHYs and the newly getting added T1 phys.

> 
> > > > + */
> > > > +#ifndef _MICROCHIPT1PHY_H_
> > > > +#define _MICROCHIPT1PHY_H_
> > > > +
> > > > +/* Interrupt Source Register */
> > > > +#define LAN87XX_INTERRUPT_SOURCE                (0x18)
> > > > +
> > > > +/* Interrupt Mask Register */
> > > > +#define LAN87XX_INTERRUPT_MASK                  (0x19)
> > > > +#define LAN87XX_MASK_LINK_UP                    (0x0004)
> > > > +#define LAN87XX_MASK_LINK_DOWN                  (0x0002)
> > >
> > > What's the point of that header file if all definitions are consumed
> > > by the same driver?
> > >
> >
> > We have planned a series of patches where we planned to use this further.
> 
> Are you adding multiple files which share the header? If not, just add the
> defines to the C code.
> 
>     Andrew

We have a plan, I think as you suggested better to go with defines in C codes itself now.
Maybe we can create/move during future submissions.

- Nisar