linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux-next 1/1] phy: Sparx5 Eth SerDes: Use direct register operations

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:   Tue, 30 Mar 2021 10:18:44 +0200
From:   Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Microchip UNG Driver List <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next 1/1] phy: Sparx5 Eth SerDes: Use direct
 register operations

Hi Andrew,

On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 20:55 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:14:38AM +0200, Steen Hegelund wrote:
> > Use direct register operations instead of a table of register
> > information to lower the stack usage.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com>
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/phy/microchip/sparx5_serdes.c | 1869 +++++++++++++------------
> >  1 file changed, 951 insertions(+), 918 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/phy/microchip/sparx5_serdes.c b/drivers/phy/microchip/sparx5_serdes.c
> > index 06bcf0c166cf..43de68a62c2f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/phy/microchip/sparx5_serdes.c
> > +++ b/drivers/phy/microchip/sparx5_serdes.c
> > @@ -343,12 +343,6 @@ struct sparx5_sd10g28_params {
> >       u8 fx_100;
> >  };
> > 
> > -struct sparx5_serdes_regval {
> > -     u32 value;
> > -     u32 mask;
> > -     void __iomem *addr;
> > -};
> > -
> >  static struct sparx5_sd25g28_media_preset media_presets_25g[] = {
> >       { /* ETH_MEDIA_DEFAULT */
> >               .cfg_en_adv               = 0,
> > @@ -945,431 +939,411 @@ static void sparx5_sd25g28_reset(void __iomem *regs[],
> >       }
> >  }
> > 
> > -static int sparx5_sd25g28_apply_params(struct device *dev,
> > -                                    void __iomem *regs[],
> > -                                    struct sparx5_sd25g28_params *params,
> > -                                    u32 sd_index)
> > +static int sparx5_sd25g28_apply_params(struct sparx5_serdes_macro *macro,
> > +                                    struct sparx5_sd25g28_params *params)
> >  {
> > -     struct sparx5_serdes_regval item[] = {
> 
> Could you just add const here, and then it is no longer on the stack?
> 
>    Andrew

No it still counts against the stack even as a const structure.

BR
Steen