linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] net: phy: air

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87jyx3e24e.fsf@miraculix.mork.no>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 12:17:21 +0100
From: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "Lucien.Jheng" <lucienzx159@...il.com>,
        Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] net: phy: air_en8811h: add Airoha
 AN8811HB support

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 07:57:48 +0100 Bjørn Mork wrote:

>> +		mdelay(300);
>
> Did you mean msleep()? mdelay(300) is a lot of spinning.

Doh!  Thanks.  I will write that 300 times on the chalkboard.

>
>> +		air_buckpbus_reg_read(phydev, mon2, &pbus_value);
>> +
>> +		if (pbus_value & AN8811HB_CRC_ST) {
>> +			air_buckpbus_reg_read(phydev, mon3, &pbus_value);
>> +			phydev_dbg(phydev, "CRC Check %s!\n",
>> +				   pbus_value & AN8811HB_CRC_CHECK_PASS ?
>> +					"PASS" : "FAIL");
>
> AI code review points out on failure you just print a FAIL and carry on.
> Is this because this is what the vendor driver does? Or we know bad CRC
> FWs exist in the wild? A comment would be useful here..

Spot on. Explaining this in a comment for you, me and the AI is a good
idea.

> Please name labels after what they jump to. Per CodingStyle..

will do if there are any labels left after refactoring.

>> +	ret = air_buckpbus_reg_write(phydev, EN8811H_FW_CTRL_1,
>> +				     EN8811H_FW_CTRL_1_START);
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		goto an8811hb_load_firmware_out;
>> +
>> +	ret = air_write_buf(phydev, AIR_FW_ADDR_DM,  fw1);
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		goto an8811hb_load_firmware_out;
>> +
>> +	ret = an8811hb_check_crc(phydev, AN8811HB_CRC_DM_SET1,
>> +				 AN8811HB_CRC_DM_MON2,
>> +				 AN8811HB_CRC_DM_MON3);
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		goto an8811hb_load_firmware_out;
>> +
>> +	ret = air_write_buf(phydev, AIR_FW_ADDR_DSP, fw2);
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		goto an8811hb_load_firmware_out;
>> +
>> +	ret = an8811hb_check_crc(phydev, AN8811HB_CRC_PM_SET1,
>> +				 AN8811HB_CRC_PM_MON2,
>> +				 AN8811HB_CRC_PM_MON3);
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		goto an8811hb_load_firmware_out;
>> +
>> +	ret = en8811h_wait_mcu_ready(phydev);
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		goto an8811hb_load_firmware_out;
>
> TBH the gotos are a bit hard to read, maybe factor out the logic that
> can fail to a separate function? Then we can just capture ret here and
> fall thru; and the helper itself can return ret; directly.

Yes, this was almost unreadable.

But fixing it turned out harder than I thought. There are so many steps
and we want to skip everything after the first failure.  Could be just
me being daft.  Probably is

Anyway, I have made an attempt.  At least got rid of the gotos.  Will
send a new version after some testing.


Bjørn