netdev - Re: [Socketcan-users] [PATCH net-next v2 1/4] can: cc770: add driver core for the Bosch CC770 and Intel AN82527

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]

Date:	Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:01:01 +0100
From:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, socketcan-users@...ts.berlios.de,
	linux-can@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Socketcan-users] [PATCH net-next v2 1/4] can: cc770: add driver
 core for the Bosch CC770 and Intel AN82527

On 11/28/2011 02:52 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:

[...]

>>> +/*
>>> + * This driver uses the last 5 message objects 11..15. The definitions
>>> + * and structure below allows to configure and assign them to the real
>>> + * message object.
>>> + */
>>> +static unsigned char cc770_obj_flags[CC770_OBJ_MAX] = {
>>> +	[CC770_OBJ_RX0] = CC770_OBJ_FLAG_RX,
>>> +	[CC770_OBJ_RX1] = CC770_OBJ_FLAG_RX | CC770_OBJ_FLAG_EFF,
>>> +	[CC770_OBJ_RX_RTR0] = CC770_OBJ_FLAG_RX | CC770_OBJ_FLAG_RTR,
>>> +	[CC770_OBJ_RX_RTR1] = CC770_OBJ_FLAG_RX | CC770_OBJ_FLAG_RTR |
>>> +			      CC770_OBJ_FLAG_EFF,
>>> +	[CC770_OBJ_TX] = 0,
>>> +};
>>
>> Is is worth the trouble making this a per device instance option? In a
>> OF-Tree world should this become an "attribute" (or what's the correct
>> of-tree word for it?)
> 
> Well, only msg object 15 does have double buffering and should therefore
> be used for bulk data reception. Therefore we have for the i82527 the
> module parameter:
> 
>   MODULE_PARM_DESC(msgobj15_eff,
> 	           "Extended 29-bit frames for message object 15 "
> 	 	   "(default: 11-bit standard frames)");
> 
> For TX we currently use just one object. Anyway, the device tree is not
> the right place to define such parameters because it's too static. The
> user may want to select it at runtime depending on the application, if
> at all. We can change it when there is a *real* requirement.

Fine with me.

>>> +	for (o = 0; o <  CC770_OBJ_MAX; o++) {
>>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> what about ARRAY_SIZE(priv->obj_flags)
> 
> CC770_OBJ_MAX is not derived from a static array definition but as show
> below:

Okay...

>   enum {
> 	CC770_OBJ_RX0 = 0,	/* for receiving normal messages */
> 	CC770_OBJ_RX1,		/* for receiving normal messages */
> 	CC770_OBJ_RX_RTR0,	/* for receiving remote transmission requests */
> 	CC770_OBJ_RX_RTR1,	/* for receiving remote transmission requests */
> 	CC770_OBJ_TX,		/* for sending messages */
> 	CC770_OBJ_MAX  <================

...then add a "," here :P

Marc
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (263 bytes)