linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/12] net: ll_temac: Support indirect

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: <87pnp4ouea.fsf@geanix.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Apr 2019 08:54:21 +0200
From:   Esben Haabendal <esben@...nix.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
        Yang Wei <yang.wei9@....com.cn>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] net: ll_temac: Support indirect_mutex share within TEMAC IP

Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> writes:

>> For OF devices, the xlnx,compound parent of the temac node should be
>> used to find siblings, and setup a shared indirect_mutex between them.
>> I will leave this work to somebody else, as I don't have hardware to
>> test that.  No regression is introduced by that, as before this commit
>> using two Ethernet interfaces in same TEMAC block is simply broken.
>
> Is that true?

Ouch, it was in v1.  But I messed up here in v2.  I will fix for v3.

>> @@ -1092,7 +1092,16 @@ static int temac_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  	lp->dev = &pdev->dev;
>>  	lp->options = XTE_OPTION_DEFAULTS;
>>  	spin_lock_init(&lp->rx_lock);
>> -	mutex_init(&lp->indirect_mutex);
>> +
>> +	/* Setup mutex for synchronization of indirect register access */
>> +	if (pdata) {
>> +		if (!pdata->indirect_mutex) {
>> +			dev_err(&pdev->dev,
>> +				"indirect_mutex missing in platform_data\n");
>> +			return -EINVAL;
>> +		}
>> +		lp->indirect_mutex = pdata->indirect_mutex;
>> +	}
>
> In the OF case, isn't lp->indirect_mutex now a NULL pointer, where as
> before it was a valid mutex?
>
> Or did i miss something somewhere?

No, you did not miss something.  But I did messed up the OF case in v2
of this series.  Sorry.

/Esben