netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v2] can: Topcliff: PCH

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]

Message-ID: <008201cb75c9$f27ff720$66f8800a@maildom.okisemi.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:27:29 +0900
From:	"Tomoya MORINAGA" <tomoya-linux@....okisemi.com>
To:	"Marc Kleine-Budde" <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
	"Wolfgang Grandegger" <wg@...ndegger.com>
Cc:	<andrew.chih.howe.khor@...el.com>,
	<socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de>, <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	<margie.foster@...el.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yong.y.wang@...el.com>,
	<masa-korg@....okisemi.com>, <kok.howg.ewe@...el.com>,
	<chripell@...e.org>, <morinaga526@....okisemi.com>,
	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <joel.clark@...el.com>,
	<qi.wang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v2] can: Topcliff: PCH_CAN driver: Fix buildwarnings

On Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:52 AM :  Marc Kleine-Budde and Wolfgang Grandegge wrote:

The following is some inarticulate points I have for your questions.
Please give me more information.

> Do I understand your code correctly? You have a big loop, but only do
>  two different things at certain values of the loop? Smells fishy.
Uh, I can't understand your intention.
Please show in detail.
This processing does configuration for all message objects.


> what does this loop do? why is it nessecarry? I don't like delay loops
>   in the hot path of a driver.
This loop is for waiting for all tx Message Object completion.
This is Topcliff CAN HW specification.


> If you figured out how to use the endianess conversion functions from
> the cpu_to_{le,be}-{le,to}_to_cpup family use them here, too.
Uh,le32_to_cpu have been used already here.
I can't understand your intention.
Please show in detail.


>> All these check if busy in the code make me a bit nervous, can you
>> please explain why they are needed. A pointer to the manual is okay, too.
> Me too. I already ask in my previous mail how long that functions
> usually blocks.
When accessing read/write from/to Message RAM,
Since it takes much time for transferring between Register and Message RAM,
SW must check busy flag of CAN register.
This is a Topcliff HW specification.


> is there some pdev->name instead of KBUILD_MODNAME that can be used?
I can't understand your intention.
pdev(struct pci_dev) doesn't have "name" member. 
Please show in detail.

Thanks, Tomoya(OKI SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD.)
--
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