netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 1/1] drivers: net: cpsw: Add support for new CPSW IP version

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:	Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:45:23 +0300
From:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
CC:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	Mugunthan V N <mugunthanvnm@...com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 1/1] drivers: net: cpsw: Add support for new
 CPSW IP version

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:43:32PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > > > > The new IP version has a minor changes and the offsets are same as the previous
> > > > > > > version, so instead of adding CPSW version number in the driver, make the driver
> > > > > > > to fall through to the latest versions so that the new version of CPSW which has
> > > > > > > the same register offsets will work directly without patching the driver.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This doesn't make any sense to me. Why not just add the new version
> > > > > > number?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > None of the hunks in your patch are on performance sensitive paths, so
> > > > > > I really can't see any point in removing the error checking.
> > > > > 
> > > > > well, if a new revision of the IP comes, the driver at least has some
> > > > > chance to work without having to be modified. If it turns out that there
> > > > > are really different features, then we patch a new version, otherwise we
> > > > > should just assume highest known version and try it out.
> > > > 
> > > > And if the driver reads junk from some random address due to
> > > > bootloader/DT/multikernel madness, it will happily peek and poke
> > > > around instead of rejecting the wrong version number.
> > > 
> > > that'd be a bug in the DT anyway, why should the driver have to cope
> > > with broken data ?
> > 
> > Um, it is called error checking?

one more thing, why do you consider a new revision to be an error ?

-- 
balbi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)