linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 06/23] net: dsa: lantiq

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: <aKI_t6F0zzLq2AMw@pidgin.makrotopia.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2025 21:46:47 +0100
From: Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Arkadi Sharshevsky <arkadis@...lanox.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Andreas Schirm <andreas.schirm@...mens.com>,
	Lukas Stockmann <lukas.stockmann@...mens.com>,
	Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...mens.com>,
	Peter Christen <peter.christen@...mens.com>,
	Avinash Jayaraman <ajayaraman@...linear.com>,
	Bing tao Xu <bxu@...linear.com>, Liang Xu <lxu@...linear.com>,
	Juraj Povazanec <jpovazanec@...linear.com>,
	"Fanni (Fang-Yi) Chan" <fchan@...linear.com>,
	"Benny (Ying-Tsan) Weng" <yweng@...linear.com>,
	"Livia M. Rosu" <lrosu@...linear.com>,
	John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 06/23] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: load
 model-specific microcode

On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 05:29:16PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >  
> > +struct gswip_pce_microcode {
> > +	u16 val_3;
> > +	u16 val_2;
> > +	u16 val_1;
> > +	u16 val_0;
> > +};
> > +
> 
> I would leave this where it is, and just have
> 
> struct gswip_pce_microcode;
> 
> Since only a pointer is needed, the compiler does not need the full
> type info, at this point.
> 
> The structure itself is rather opaque, and only makes some sort of
> sense when next to the MAC_ENTRY macro.

The structure is also used in the function gswip_pce_load_microcode().
Now, if we keep defining the struct fields along with the microcode this
will become a problem once there is more than one such set of microcode
instructions and additional header files for them. Each of them would
need to define struct gswip_pce_microcode with its fields.
The lantiq_pce.h header then becomes private to the driver for the
in-SoC switches, while gswip_pce_load_microcode() would be part of the
shared/common module use by both, in-SoC/MMIO switches as well as
(newer) MDIO-connected ones, and I would not want to include any of the
*_pce.h headers in the shared/common module.

Obviously I can just move the struct definition in the later commit
which actually separates the MMIO-specific parts of the driver and the
common/shared parts into different modules. Is it that what you had in
mind?