linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 03/12] net: ethernet: oa

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: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 14:22:16 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org, saeedm@...dia.com,
	anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com,
	ruanjinjie@...wei.com, Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com,
	vladimir.oltean@....com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
	Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com, Pier.Beruto@...emi.com,
	Selvamani.Rajagopal@...emi.com, Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com,
	benjamin.bigler@...nformulastudent.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 03/12] net: ethernet: oa_tc6: implement
 register read operation

On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 07:04:20AM +0000, Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On 07/03/24 5:49 am, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> >>   enum oa_tc6_register_op {
> >> +     OA_TC6_CTRL_REG_READ = 0,
> >>        OA_TC6_CTRL_REG_WRITE = 1,
> >>   };
> > 
> > I thought it looked a little odd when the enum was added in the
> > previous patch with the first value of 1, and only one value. Now it
> > makes more sense.
> Ok.
> > 
> > The actual value appears to not matter? It is always
> > 
> >> +     if (reg_op == OA_TC6_CTRL_REG_WRITE)
> > 
> > So i would drop the numbering, and leave it to the compiler. The
> > patches will then look less odd.
> "drop the numbering", do you refer to this patch alone or previous patch 
> also? If it is for this patch alone then it makes sense as they are 
> going to be 0 and 1 anyway. But if we drop the numbering in the previous 
> patch it will become 0 which will create an issue in the below line as 
> it needs 1,
> 
> FIELD_PREP(OA_TC6_CTRL_HEADER_WRITE, reg_op)

That is why i asked: 

> The actual value appears to not matter? It is always
> 
> +     if (reg_op == OA_TC6_CTRL_REG_WRITE)

So the actual value does matter, so keep it in the previous patch.
Does the value of OA_TC6_CTRL_REG_READ matter? Is it also used in
FIELD_PREP etc? If not, taking away the = 0 will emphasise that 
OA_TC6_CTRL_REG_WRITE has to be 1.

	Andrew