linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: introduce support for two chips using direct smi addressing

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:   Wed, 8 May 2019 13:47:15 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: introduce support for two
 chips using direct smi addressing

> > Hi Rasmus
> > 
> > This works, but i think i prefer adding mv88e6xxx_smi_dual_chip_write,
> > mv88e6xxx_smi_dual_chip_read, and create a
> > mv88e6xxx_smi_single_chip_ops.
> 
> Hi Andrew
> 
> Now that Vivien's "net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: refine SMI support" is in
> master, do you still prefer introducing a third bus_ops structure
> (mv88e6xxx_smi_dual_direct_ops ?), or would the approach of adding
> chip->sw_addr in the smi_direct_{read/write} functions be ok (which
> would then require changing the indirect callers to pass 0 instead of
> chip->swaddr).

Hi Rasmus

I would still prefer a new bus_ops.

Thanks
	Andrew