linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] r8152: Add macpassthru support for ThinkPad Thunderbolt 3 Dock Gen 2

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0835B3720019904CB8F7AA43166CEEB2F18F4F92@RTITMBSVM03.realtek.com.tw>
Date:   Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:48:04 +0000
From:   Hayes Wang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
To:     Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
CC:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "oliver@...kum.org" <oliver@...kum.org>,
        "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] r8152: Add macpassthru support for ThinkPad Thunderbolt 3 Dock Gen 2

Kai-Heng Feng [mailto:kai.heng.feng@...onical.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2019 7:18 PM
[...]
> >> 	} else {
> >> -		/* test for RTL8153-BND and RTL8153-BD */
> >> -		ocp_data = ocp_read_byte(tp, MCU_TYPE_USB, USB_MISC_1);
> >> -		if ((ocp_data & BND_MASK) == 0 && (ocp_data & BD_MASK) == 0) {
> >> -			netif_dbg(tp, probe, tp->netdev,
> >> -				  "Invalid variant for MAC pass through\n");
> >> -			return -ENODEV;
> >> +		bypass_test = false;
> >> +		mac_obj_name = "\\_SB.AMAC";
> >> +		mac_obj_type = ACPI_TYPE_BUFFER;
> >> +		mac_strlen = 0x17;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	if (!bypass_test) {
> >
> > Maybe you could combine this with the "else" above.
> > Then, the variable "bypass_test" could be removed.
> 
> Ok, will do in V3.
> 
> > And the declaration of "ocp_data" could be moved after the "else".
> 
> Isn't putting declarations at the top of the function the preferred way?

I mean the ocp_data wouldn't be used out of the else,
so you could move the declaration to the inside of the else.

However, I don't think you have to send another patch for this.
Thanks.

Best Regards,
Hayes