netdev - Re: [PATCH -next] net: hisilicon: Never build on SPARC

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: <5627C549.9080600@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:03:05 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] net: hisilicon: Never build on SPARC

On 10/21/2015 08:57 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 October 2015 08:33:11 David Miller wrote:
>> From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:56:18 -0700
>>
>>>> @@ -57,6 +57,11 @@ extern int of_dma_get_range(struct device_node *np,
>>>> u64 *dma_addr,
>>>>                               u64 *paddr, u64 *size);
>>>>    extern bool of_dma_is_coherent(struct device_node *np);
>>>>    #else /* CONFIG_OF_ADDRESS */
>>>> +static inline u64 of_translate_address(struct device_node *np, const
>>>> __be32 *addr)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    return 0;
>>>
>>> Maybe return OF_BAD_ADDR ?
>>
>> The thing to really do on sparc, is just return the address raw untranslated
>> because that just works.
>>
>
> We still need to check #address-cells, right?
>
> Something like this?
>
> static inline u64 of_translate_address(struct device_node *np, const __be32 *addr)
> {
> #if defined(CONFIG_SPARC) || defined(CONFIG_M68K)
> 	int pna = of_n_addr_cells(np);
> 	u64 ret = be32_to_cpu(addr[pna - 1]);
>
> 	if (pna > 1)
> 		ret += (u64)be32_to_cpu(addr[pna - 2]) << 32;
>
> 	return ret;

That suggests that sparc would need a translation after all, which
seems to contradict what David said earlier.

Anyway, if it gets that complicated, I think we should stick with
just returning OF_BAD_ADDR. The above really suggests the need for
an architecture specific solution.

Guenter

> #else
> 	return OF_BAD_ADDR;
> #endif
> }
>
> 	Arnd
>

--
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