linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 13/19] rtw88: mac: Add support for SDIO specifics in the power on sequence

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: <97a2efacecd6d6bb7add6e227a68f7d9e1ed9d0b.camel@realtek.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Dec 2022 11:24:20 +0000
From:   Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>
To:     "martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com" 
        <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
CC:     "linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "neojou@...il.com" <neojou@...il.com>,
        "kvalo@...nel.org" <kvalo@...nel.org>,
        "ulf.hansson@...aro.org" <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        "tony0620emma@...il.com" <tony0620emma@...il.com>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "macroalpha82@...il.com" <macroalpha82@...il.com>,
        "jernej.skrabec@...il.com" <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
        "nitin.gupta981@...il.com" <nitin.gupta981@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 13/19] rtw88: mac: Add support for SDIO specifics in the power on sequence

On Thu, 2022-12-29 at 11:49 +0100, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> Hi Ping-Ke,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 2:15 AM Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > +             if (rtw_sdio_is_sdio30_supported(rtwdev))
> > > +                     rtw_write8_set(rtwdev, REG_HCI_OPT_CTRL + 2, BIT(2));
> > 
> > BIT_USB_LPM_ACT_EN BIT(10)   // reg_addr +2, so bit >> 8
> The ones above are clear to me, thank you.
> But for this one I have a question: don't we need BIT(18) for this one
> and then bit >> 16?
> reg_addr + 0: bits 0..7
> reg_addr + 1: bits 8..15
> reg_addr + 2: bits 16..23
> 
> 

Sorry, my mistakes.

It should be  "BIT_SDIO_PAD_E5 BIT(18)" and >> 16.

--
Ping-Ke