linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] net: dsa: add support for Atheros AR9331 build-in switch

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: <20191029123854.GN15259@lunn.ch>
Date:   Tue, 29 Oct 2019 13:38:54 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Jay Cliburn <jcliburn@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Chris Snook <chris.snook@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] net: dsa: add support for Atheros AR9331 build-in
 switch

Hi Oleksij

> > > +static void ar9331_sw_port_disable(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct ar9331_sw_priv *priv = (struct ar9331_sw_priv *)ds->priv;
> > > +	struct regmap *regmap = priv->regmap;
> > > +	int ret;
> > > +
> > > +	ret = regmap_write(regmap, AR9331_SW_REG_PORT_STATUS(port), 0);
> > > +	if (ret)
> > > +		dev_err_ratelimited(priv->dev, "%s: %i\n", __func__, ret);
> > > +}
> > 
> > I've asked this before, but i don't remember the answer. Why are
> > port_enable and port_disable the same?
> 
> I have only MAC TX/RX enable bit. This bit is set by phylink_mac_link_up and
> removed by phylink_mac_link_down.
> The port enable I use only to set predictable state of the port
> register: all bits cleared. May be i should just drop port enable
> function? What do you think? 

At minimum, it needs a comment about why enable and disable are the
same. If i keep asking, others will as well.

If there is nothing useful to do, then drop it.

   Andrew