[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BB1CAEB2DB6746D39E020502E48AB45F@realtek.com.tw>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:25:15 +0800
From: hayeswang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
To: 'Ben Hutchings' <benh@...ian.org>
CC: <romieu@...zoreil.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] net/r8169: Update the function of parsing firmware
> From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:benh@...ian.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 11:18 PM
> To: Hayeswang
> Cc: romieu@...zoreil.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/r8169: Update the function of
> parsing firmware
>
> On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 17:45 +0800, Hayes Wang wrote:
> > Update rtl_phy_write_fw function. The new function could parse the
> > complex firmware which is used by RTL8111E and later.
> > The new firmware may read data and do some operations, not just do
> > writing only.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hayes Wang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/r8169.c | 112
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > 1 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/r8169.c b/drivers/net/r8169.c index
> > 27a7c20..2115424 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/r8169.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/r8169.c
> [...]
> > - while (i-- != 0) {
> > - u32 action = le32_to_cpu(*phytable);
> > - u32 data = action & 0x0000ffff;
> > - u32 reg = (action & 0x0fff0000) >> 16;
> > + predata = 0;
> > + count = 0;
> > +
> > + for (index = 0; index < fw->size / sizeof(*phytable); ) {
> > + u32 action = le32_to_cpu(phytable[index]);
> > + u32 data = action & 0x0000FFFF;
> > + u32 regno = (action & 0x0FFF0000) >> 16;
> > +
> > + if (!action)
> > + break;
> >
> > - switch(action & 0xf0000000) {
> > + switch(action & 0xF0000000) {
> [...]
> > + case PHY_BJMPN:
> > + index -= regno;
> > + break;
> [...]
>
> I'm concerned that this is being extended from a firmware
> upload interface to a quite general interpreter for PHY
> initialisation. I realise that this will make it easier to
> fix PHY firmware bugs in future but it also allows you to
> accidentally introduce infinite loops.
> The initialisation programs will obviously not be subject to
> the same sort of review on netdev that new C code is.
>
I know the situation which you worry. However, the real action is depend to the
status of the hardware, and it is hard that I couldn't assume any situation to
check the firmware. Thus, I just check if every commands are valid. I could only
promise that there is no infinite loop if the firmware is correct.
> > + case PHY_DELAY_MS:
> > + mdelay(data);
> > + index++;
> > + break;
>
> Why mdelay() and not msleep()? This is not an atomic context.
>
Accounding to the document, the msleep have to larger than 10ms. It would run
more than 10ms if you set less than 10 for msleep. I think it takes more delay
than which I need. Beside, I don't sure if it would be run during atomic
context, so I think using mdelay is safer.
> > + case PHY_READ_MAC_BYTE:
> > + case PHY_WRITE_MAC_BYTE:
> > + case PHY_WRITE_ERI_WORD:
> > default:
> > BUG();
> > }
> > +
> > + if (index < 0)
> > + BUG();
> [...]
>
> index is unsigned so it can't be < 0. It looks like the loop
> condition should catch an out-of-range index, but really the
> range-checking should be done in the first loop.
>
I would try to fix this.
> Ben.
>
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of
> thinking.
>
> - Albert Camus
>
>
> ------Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists