linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] phy: add a driver for the Rockchip SoC internal USB2.0 PHY

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:	Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:52:22 +0800
From:	Yunzhi Li <lyz@...k-chips.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
CC:	heiko@...ech.de, jwerner@...omium.org, dianders@...omium.org,
	olof@...om.net, huangtao@...k-chips.com, zyw@...k-chips.com,
	cf@...k-chips.com, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] phy: add a driver for the Rockchip SoC internal
 USB2.0 PHY


On 2014/12/11 14:37, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 11:57 +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thursday 11 December 2014 11:42 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 11:32 +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday 10 December 2014 04:16 PM, Yunzhi Li wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-rockchip-usb.c b/drivers/phy/phy-rockchip-usb.c
>>> []
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * The higher 16-bit of this register is used for write protection
>>>>> + * only if BIT(13 + 16) set to 1 the BIT(13) can be written.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +#define SIDDQ_MSK		BIT(13 + 16)
>>> huh?
>>>
>>> This #define looks _very_ odd.
>>>
>>> Is this supposed to be a single bit 29 or
>>> some range?
>>  From what I understood, the most significant 16 bits are write locks to the
>> least significant 16 bits.
>>
>> So If I have to write something on bit 0, I have to set bit 16.
>> If I have to write something on bit 1, I have to set bit 17.
>> If I have to write something on bit 2, I have to set bit 18.
>> and so on.
> To me it'd look better to use another << rather than a plus
Like (BIT(13) << 16)? It looks strange, or could I just use ((1 << 13) 
<< 16) to describe this bit ?

---
Yunzhi Li @ rockchip



--
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/