linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 05/12] reset: lan966x: Add switch reset driver

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: <20210922095953.r6xcr2dtx7diavhj@soft-dev3-1.localhost>
Date:   Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:59:53 +0200
From:   Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <linux@...linux.org.uk>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 05/12] reset: lan966x: Add switch reset
 driver

The 09/20/2021 14:11, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 11:52:11AM +0200, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > The lan966x switch SoC has a number of components that can be reset
> > indiviually, but at least the switch core needs to be in a well defined
> > state at power on, when any of the lan966x drivers starts to access the
> > switch core, this reset driver is available.
> >
> > The reset driver is loaded early via the postcore_initcall interface, and
> > will then be available for the other lan966x drivers (SGPIO, SwitchDev etc)
> > that are loaded next, and the first of them to be loaded can perform the
> > one-time switch core reset that is needed.
> 
> A lot of this looks very similar to
> reset-microchip-sparx5.c. PROTECT_REG is 0x88 rather than 0x84, but
> actually using the value is the same. SOFT_RESET_REG is identical.  So
> rather than adding a new driver, maybe you can generalize
> reset-microchip-sparx5.c, and add a second compatible string?

You are right, they look similar.
I will try to add a new compatible string.

> 
>         Andrew

-- 
/Horatiu