linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] M

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]

Message-ID: <8b793f8a-6ffb-9e23-1965-9e7c631031a1@ti.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Oct 2018 06:39:33 -0500
From:   Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
To:     Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@...com>, <wg@...ndegger.com>,
        <mkl@...gutronix.de>, <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] M_CAN Framework rework

On 10/24/2018 02:33 AM, Faiz Abbas wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> On Thursday 18 October 2018 01:51 AM, Dan Murphy wrote:
>> Bump
>>
>> On 10/10/2018 09:20 AM, Dan Murphy wrote:
>>> All
>>>
>>> This patch series creates a m_can core framework that devices can register
>>> to.  The m_can core manages the Bosch IP and CAN frames.  Each device that
>>> is registered is responsible for managing device specific functions.
>>>
>>> This rewrite was suggested in a device driver submission for the TCAN4x5x
>>> device
>>> Reference upstream post:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/984163/
>>>
>>> For instance the TCAN device is a SPI device that uses a specific data payload to
>>> determine writes and reads.  In addition the device has a reset input as well
>>> as a wakeup pin.  The register offset of the m_can registers differs and must
>>> be set by the device attached to the core.
>>>
>>> The m_can core will use iomapped writes and reads as the default mechanism for
>>> writing and reading.  The device driver can provide over rides for this.
>>>
>>> This patch series is not complete as it does not handle the CAN interrupts
>>> nor can perform a CAN write.  If this patch series is deemed acceptable I will
>>> finish debugging the driver and post a non RFC series.
>>>
>>> Finally I did attempt to reduce the first patch with various git format patch
>>> directives but none seemed to reduce the patch.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> Dan Murphy (3):
>>>   can: m_can: Create m_can core to leverage common code
>>>   dt-bindings: can: tcan4x5x: Add DT bindings for TCAN4x5X driver
>>>   can: tcan4x5x: Add tcan4x5x driver to the kernel
>>>
>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/net/can/tcan4x5x.txt  |   34 +
>>>  drivers/net/can/m_can/Kconfig                 |   18 +
>>>  drivers/net/can/m_can/Makefile                |    4 +-
>>>  drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c                 | 1683 +----------------
>>>  .../net/can/m_can/{m_can.c => m_can_core.c}   |  479 +++--
>>>  drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can_core.h            |  100 +
>>>  drivers/net/can/m_can/tcan4x5x.c              |  321 ++++
>>>  7 files changed, 722 insertions(+), 1917 deletions(-)
>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/tcan4x5x.txt
>>>  copy drivers/net/can/m_can/{m_can.c => m_can_core.c} (83%)
>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can_core.h
>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/net/can/m_can/tcan4x5x.c
>>>
> 
> Patch 1/3 never arrived for me. Its not there on lkml either.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/10/611
> 

LKML seems to have issue with 1/3.  Here they were posted.
Maybe the patch is to large but I received all 3 + the cover letter.

https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/998019/
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/998017/
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/998020/

> Can you resend the complete series?
> 
> Thanks,
> Faiz
> 


-- 
------------------
Dan Murphy