linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND net-next v5 1/4] net: phy: realtek: Group RTL82* macro definitions

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z_hApRl14nSgwtCu@a98shuttle.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 00:05:25 +0200
From: Michael Klein <michael@...sekall.de>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND net-next v5 1/4] net: phy: realtek: Group RTL82* macro
 definitions

On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 02:17:19PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 07:52:50PM -0700, Joe Damato wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 08:21:40PM +0200, Michael Klein wrote:
>> >  #define RTL821x_PHYSR				0x11
>> >  #define RTL821x_PHYSR_DUPLEX			BIT(13)
>> >  #define RTL821x_PHYSR_SPEED			GENMASK(15, 14)
>> > @@ -31,6 +40,10 @@
>> >  #define RTL821x_EXT_PAGE_SELECT			0x1e
>> >  #define RTL821x_PAGE_SELECT			0x1f
>> >
>> > +#define RTL8211E_CTRL_DELAY			BIT(13)
>> > +#define RTL8211E_TX_DELAY			BIT(12)
>> > +#define RTL8211E_RX_DELAY			BIT(11)
>>
>> Maybe I'm reading this wrong but these don't seem sorted
>> lexicographically ?
>
>This i don't follow, you normally keep register bits next to the
>register. This is particularly important when the register bits don't
>have the register name embedded within it.

Well, there is no definition for the register these bits pertain to, 
and adding one in _this_ patch would break the scope of this change. So 
I will address this in a later patch of this series in the next version.

-- 
Michael