| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:46:40 +0200
From: Egil Hjelmeland <privat@...l-hjelmeland.no>
To: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
andrew@...n.ch, f.fainelli@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] net: dsa: lan9303: Add port_fast_age and
port_fdb_dump methods
On 19. okt. 2017 15:58, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Egil,
>
Hi Vivien
> Egil Hjelmeland <privat@...l-hjelmeland.no> writes:
>
>> Add DSA method port_fast_age as a step to STP support.
>>
>> Add low level functions for accessing the lan9303 ALR (Address Logic
>> Resolution).
>>
>> Added DSA method port_fdb_dump
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Egil Hjelmeland <privat@...l-hjelmeland.no>
>
> The patch looks good overall, a few nitpicks though.
>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/dsa/lan9303-core.c | 159 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/net/dsa/lan9303.h | 2 +
>> 2 files changed, 161 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303-core.c b/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303-core.c
>> index 09a748327fc6..ae904242b001 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303-core.c
>> @@ -124,6 +124,21 @@
>> #define LAN9303_MAC_RX_CFG_2 0x0c01
>> #define LAN9303_MAC_TX_CFG_2 0x0c40
>> #define LAN9303_SWE_ALR_CMD 0x1800
>> +# define ALR_CMD_MAKE_ENTRY BIT(2)
>> +# define ALR_CMD_GET_FIRST BIT(1)
>> +# define ALR_CMD_GET_NEXT BIT(0)
>> +#define LAN9303_SWE_ALR_WR_DAT_0 0x1801
>> +#define LAN9303_SWE_ALR_WR_DAT_1 0x1802
>> +# define ALR_DAT1_VALID BIT(26)
>> +# define ALR_DAT1_END_OF_TABL BIT(25)
>> +# define ALR_DAT1_AGE_OVERRID BIT(25)
>> +# define ALR_DAT1_STATIC BIT(24)
>> +# define ALR_DAT1_PORT_BITOFFS 16
>> +# define ALR_DAT1_PORT_MASK (7 << ALR_DAT1_PORT_BITOFFS)
>> +#define LAN9303_SWE_ALR_RD_DAT_0 0x1805
>> +#define LAN9303_SWE_ALR_RD_DAT_1 0x1806
>> +#define LAN9303_SWE_ALR_CMD_STS 0x1808
>> +# define ALR_STS_MAKE_PEND BIT(0)
>
> Why is there different spacing and prefix with these defines?
The extra space is to set bit definitions apart from register offsets,
a convention that is used in the file. However, agree that the
bit defs should be prefixed with LAN9303_ to be consistent with
rest of the file.
>
>> #define LAN9303_SWE_VLAN_CMD 0x180b
>> # define LAN9303_SWE_VLAN_CMD_RNW BIT(5)
>> # define LAN9303_SWE_VLAN_CMD_PVIDNVLAN BIT(4)
>> @@ -478,6 +493,125 @@ static int lan9303_detect_phy_setup(struct lan9303 *chip)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +/* ----------------- Address Logic Resolution (ALR)------------------*/
>> +
>> +/* Map ALR-port bits to port bitmap, and back*/
>
> The (leading and trailing) spacing in your comments is often
> inconsistent. You can use simple inline or block comments, no need for
> fancy rules. Please refer to Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt for
> block comment style in netdev though, they are a bit different.
>
I can add an trailing space to the second comment.
The first comment is sort of "section" comment, so I wanted it to be
separate. But perhaps I should drop these "section" comments, see
further below.
>> +static const int alrport_2_portmap[] = {1, 2, 4, 0, 3, 5, 6, 7 };
>> +static const int portmap_2_alrport[] = {3, 0, 1, 4, 2, 5, 6, 7 };
>> +
>> +/* ALR: Actual register access functions */
>> +
>> +/* This function will wait a while until mask & reg == value */
>> +/* Otherwise, return timeout */
>
> Same, a single block comment will do the job.
>
See "section comment" comments...
>> +static int lan9303_csr_reg_wait(struct lan9303 *chip, int regno,
>> + int mask, char value)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < 0x1000; i++) {
>> + u32 reg;
>> +
>> + lan9303_read_switch_reg(chip, regno, ®);
>> + if ((reg & mask) == value)
>> + return 0;
>> + usleep_range(1000, 2000);
>> + }
>> + return -ETIMEDOUT;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int lan9303_alr_make_entry_raw(struct lan9303 *chip, u32 dat0, u32 dat1)
>> +{
>> + lan9303_write_switch_reg(
>> + chip, LAN9303_SWE_ALR_WR_DAT_0, dat0);
>> + lan9303_write_switch_reg(
>> + chip, LAN9303_SWE_ALR_WR_DAT_1, dat1);
>> + lan9303_write_switch_reg(
>> + chip, LAN9303_SWE_ALR_CMD, ALR_CMD_MAKE_ENTRY);
>> + lan9303_csr_reg_wait(
>> + chip, LAN9303_SWE_ALR_CMD_STS, ALR_STS_MAKE_PEND, 0);
>
> As I said in a previous series, please don't do this. Function arguments
> must be vertically aligned with the opening parenthesis.
>
Will fix
>> + lan9303_write_switch_reg(chip, LAN9303_SWE_ALR_CMD, 0);
>> + return 0;
>
> A newline before a return statement is appreciated.
>
OK
>> +}
>> +
>> +typedef void alr_loop_cb_t(struct lan9303 *chip, u32 dat0, u32 dat1,
>> + int portmap, void *ctx);
>> +
>> +static void lan9303_alr_loop(struct lan9303 *chip, alr_loop_cb_t *cb, void *ctx)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + lan9303_write_switch_reg(chip, LAN9303_SWE_ALR_CMD, ALR_CMD_GET_FIRST);
>> + lan9303_write_switch_reg(chip, LAN9303_SWE_ALR_CMD, 0);
>> +
>> + for (i = 1; i < LAN9303_NUM_ALR_RECORDS; i++) {
>> + u32 dat0, dat1;
>> + int alrport, portmap;
>> +
>> + lan9303_read_switch_reg(chip, LAN9303_SWE_ALR_RD_DAT_0, &dat0);
>> + lan9303_read_switch_reg(chip, LAN9303_SWE_ALR_RD_DAT_1, &dat1);
>> + if (dat1 & ALR_DAT1_END_OF_TABL)
>> + break;
>> +
>> + alrport = (dat1 & ALR_DAT1_PORT_MASK) >> ALR_DAT1_PORT_BITOFFS;
>> + portmap = alrport_2_portmap[alrport];
>> +
>> + cb(chip, dat0, dat1, portmap, ctx);
>> +
>> + lan9303_write_switch_reg(
>> + chip, LAN9303_SWE_ALR_CMD, ALR_CMD_GET_NEXT);
>
> Please align arguments with the opening parenthesis.
>
ok
>> + lan9303_write_switch_reg(chip, LAN9303_SWE_ALR_CMD, 0);
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* ALR: lan9303_alr_loop callback functions */
>> +
> > No need for an extra newline if your comment refers directly to the
> function below. It will also be consistent with the rest of your patch.
>
The comment refer to several functions...
>> +static void alr_reg_to_mac(u32 dat0, u32 dat1, u8 mac[6])
>> +{
>> + mac[0] = (dat0 >> 0) & 0xff;
>> + mac[1] = (dat0 >> 8) & 0xff;
>> + mac[2] = (dat0 >> 16) & 0xff;
>> + mac[3] = (dat0 >> 24) & 0xff;
>> + mac[4] = (dat1 >> 0) & 0xff;
>> + mac[5] = (dat1 >> 8) & 0xff;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Clear learned (non-static) entry on given port */
>> +static void alr_loop_cb_del_port_learned(struct lan9303 *chip, u32 dat0,
>> + u32 dat1, int portmap, void *ctx)
>> +{
>> + int *port = ctx;
>
> You can get the value directly to make the line below more readable:
>
> int port = *(int *)ctx;
>
Agree
>> +
>> + if (((BIT(*port) & portmap) == 0) || (dat1 & ALR_DAT1_STATIC))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + /* learned entries has only one port, we can just delete */
>> + dat1 &= ~ALR_DAT1_VALID; /* delete entry */
>> + lan9303_alr_make_entry_raw(chip, dat0, dat1);
>> +}
>> +
>> +struct port_fdb_dump_ctx {
>> + int port;
>> + void *data;
>> + dsa_fdb_dump_cb_t *cb;
>> +};
>> +
>> +static void alr_loop_cb_fdb_port_dump(struct lan9303 *chip, u32 dat0,
>> + u32 dat1, int portmap, void *ctx)
>> +{
>> + struct port_fdb_dump_ctx *dump_ctx = ctx;
>> + u8 mac[ETH_ALEN];
>> + bool is_static;
>> +
>> + if ((BIT(dump_ctx->port) & portmap) == 0)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + alr_reg_to_mac(dat0, dat1, mac);
>> + is_static = !!(dat1 & ALR_DAT1_STATIC);
>> + dump_ctx->cb(mac, 0, is_static, dump_ctx->data);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* --------------------- Various chip setup ----------------------*/
>> +
>
> This isn't a very useful comment, at least use an inline or block
> comment if you want to keep it.
>
I put it to signify the end of the ALR section. But could not think of a
better text... Perhaps "End of ALR functions" would be better?
Or perhaps I should just drop the "section comments"? After all the
functions in question has "alr" in their names.
>> static int lan9303_disable_processing_port(struct lan9303 *chip,
>> unsigned int port)
>> {
>> @@ -923,6 +1057,29 @@ static void lan9303_port_stp_state_set(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>> /* else: touching SWE_PORT_STATE would break port separation */
>> }
>>
>> +static void lan9303_port_fast_age(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)
>> +{
>> + struct lan9303 *chip = ds->priv;
>> +
>> + dev_dbg(chip->dev, "%s(%d)\n", __func__, port);
>> + lan9303_alr_loop(chip, alr_loop_cb_del_port_learned, &port);
>> +}section
>> +
>> +static int lan9303_port_fdb_dump(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>> + dsa_fdb_dump_cb_t *cb, void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct lan9303 *chip = ds->priv;
>> + struct port_fdb_dump_ctx dump_ctx = {
>> + .port = port,
>> + .data = data,
>> + .cb = cb,
>> + };
>> +
>> + dev_dbg(chip->dev, "%s(%d)\n", __func__, port);
>> + lan9303_alr_loop(chip, alr_loop_cb_fdb_port_dump, &dump_ctx);
>> + return 0;
>
> A newline before the return statement is welcome.
>
ok
>> +}
>> +
>> static const struct dsa_switch_ops lan9303_switch_ops = {
>> .get_tag_protocol = lan9303_get_tag_protocol,
>> .setup = lan9303_setup,
>> @@ -937,6 +1094,8 @@ static const struct dsa_switch_ops lan9303_switch_ops = {
>> .port_bridge_join = lan9303_port_bridge_join,
>> .port_bridge_leave = lan9303_port_bridge_leave,
>> .port_stp_state_set = lan9303_port_stp_state_set,
>> + .port_fast_age = lan9303_port_fast_age,
>> + .port_fdb_dump = lan9303_port_fdb_dump,
>> };
>>
>> static int lan9303_register_switch(struct lan9303 *chip)
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303.h b/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303.h
>> index 68ecd544b658..4db323d65741 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303.h
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303.h
>> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ struct lan9303_phy_ops {
>> int regnum, u16 val);
>> };
>>
>> +#define LAN9303_NUM_ALR_RECORDS 512
>> +
>> struct lan9303 {
>> struct device *dev;
>> struct regmap *regmap;
>> --
>> 2.11.0
>
Thanks
Egil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists