linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 08/11] net: stmmac: Add EMAC3 variant of dwmac4

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: <20230313173904.3d611e83@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2023 17:39:04 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, agross@...nel.org,
        andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        vkoul@...nel.org, bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org,
        mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org, peppe.cavallaro@...com,
        alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, joabreu@...opsys.com,
        mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, richardcochran@...il.com,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, veekhee@...le.com,
        tee.min.tan@...ux.intel.com, mohammad.athari.ismail@...el.com,
        jonathanh@...dia.com, ruppala@...dia.com, bmasney@...hat.com,
        andrey.konovalov@...aro.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, ncai@...cinc.com,
        jsuraj@....qualcomm.com, hisunil@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 08/11] net: stmmac: Add EMAC3 variant of dwmac4

On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 11:56:17 -0500 Andrew Halaney wrote:
> EMAC3 is a Qualcomm variant of dwmac4 that functions the same, but has a
> different address space layout for MTL and DMA registers. This makes the
> patch a bit more complicated than we would like so let's explain why the
> current approach was used.

Please drop all the static inlines in C sources, you're wrapping 
a single function call, the compiler will do the right thing.

Please no more than 6 function arguments.