netdev - Re: [PATCH] [v3] spidernet : add improved phy support

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: <20070212232618.GD923@austin.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:26:18 -0600
From:	linas@...tin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas)
To:	Jens Osterkamp <jens@...ibm.com>
Cc:	jgarzik@...ox.com, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	James K Lewis <jim@...ewis.com>,
	Ishizaki Kou <kou.ishizaki@...hiba.co.jp>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, cbe-oss-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v3] spidernet : add improved phy support

Tested the patch, it works for me.  Thus I'll attach a pre-emptive 
Acked-by: Linas Vepstas <linas@...tin.ibm.com>

However, some quibbbles, which I think would be nice to see fixed:

On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:35:34PM +0100, Jens Osterkamp wrote:
> 
> Index: linux-2.6.20/drivers/net/sungem_phy.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.20.orig/drivers/net/sungem_phy.c
> +++ linux-2.6.20/drivers/net/sungem_phy.c
>  
> +#define BCM5421_MODE_MASK	(1 << 5)

Customary practice is to have these in the heder file ... 

> +	mode = (phy_reg & BCM5421_MODE_MASK) >> 5;
> +
> +	if ( mode == BCM54XX_COPPER)

All this shifting makes the code hard to read and 
hard to verify for correctness.  Part of the problem 
seems to be that you are trying to re-cycle the 
BCM5421_COPPER and BCM5461_COPPER which are in 
different locations.

It would have been clearer to simply have

#define BCM5421_MODE_MASK  (1 << 5)
#define BCM5421_COPPER     0

if (phy_reg & BCM5421_MODE_MASK == BCM5421_COPPER)

> +	if ( (phy_reg & 0x0080) >> 7)

There is no need for the shift. The if statement is 
just as true (or false) with or without the shift.

> +#define BCM5461_FIBER_LINK	(1 << 2)
> +#define BCM5461_MODE_MASK	(3 << 1)
> +
> +	mode = (phy_reg & BCM5461_MODE_MASK ) >> 1;

More confusing shifting ....

> +enum {
> +	BCM54XX_COPPER,
> +	BCM54XX_FIBER,
> +	BCM54XX_GBIC,
> +	BCM54XX_SGMII,

Things that are being used for bitmak tests should probably
not be declared in an enum. For me, at least, there's a 
cognitive dissonance in doing things this way.

-- linas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html