linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/2] net: dsa: microchip: Add drive strength configuration

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: <35c1c9ee-357f-4ba5-dd47-95d4c064e69b@wanadoo.fr>
Date:   Tue, 12 Sep 2023 20:38:05 +0200
From:   Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
        Arun Ramadoss <arun.ramadoss@...rochip.com>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/2] net: dsa: microchip: Add drive strength
 configuration

Le 12/09/2023 à 13:35, Vladimir Oltean a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 06:54:59AM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>> Add device tree based drive strength configuration support. It is needed to
>> pass EMI validation on our hardware.
>>
>> Configuration values are based on the vendor's reference driver.
>>
>> Tested on KSZ9563R.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
>> ---


>> +	if (!found)
>> +		return 0;
> 
> Maybe "have_any_prop" would be a better name to avoid Christophe's confusion?

Not sure it worth it.

Christophe should learn to read code or avoid some quick feed-back 
before morning coffee :)

'found' looks good enough.

CJ