netdev - Re: [V5, 2/6] fsl/fman: Add FMan 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:30:54 -0500
From:	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
To:	Liberman Igal-B31950 <Igal.Liberman@...escale.com>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Bucur Madalin-Cristian-B32716" <madalin.bucur@...escale.com>
Subject: Re: [V5, 2/6] fsl/fman: Add FMan support

On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 11:32 -0500, Liberman Igal-B31950 wrote:

> > > +
> > > +struct device *fman_get_device(struct fman *fman) {
> > > + return fman->dev;
> > > +}
> > 
> > Is this really necessary?
> > 
> 
> Fman port needs fman->dev, fman structure is opaque, so yes, it's needed.

Why is opacity being maintained from one part of the fman driver to another?  
Isn't this the sort of excessive layering that was complained about?


> > > +         /* In B4 rev 2.0 (and above) the MURAM size is 512KB.
> > > +          * Check the SVR and update MURAM size if required.
> > > +          */
> > > +         u32 svr;
> > > +
> > > +         svr = mfspr(SPRN_SVR);
> > > +
> > > +         if ((SVR_SOC_VER(svr) == SVR_B4860) && (SVR_MAJ(svr) >=
> > 2))
> > > +                 fman->dts_params.muram_size = 0x80000;
> > > + }
> > 
> > Why wasn't the MURAM size described in the device tree, as it was with
> > CPM/QE?
> > 
> 
> MURAM size described by the device-tree.
> In B4860 rev 2.0 (and above) MURAM size is bigger. 
> This is workaround, in order to have the same device tree for all B4860 
> revisions.

We don't support b4860 prior to rev 2.0 (due to e6500 core errata) so this is 
irrelevant.  Fix the device tree.

> > > +
> > > + of_node_put(muram_node);
> > > + of_node_put(fm_node);
> > > +
> > > + err = devm_request_irq(&of_dev->dev, irq, fman_irq,
> > > +                        IRQF_NO_SUSPEND, "fman", fman);
> > > + if (err < 0) {
> > > +         pr_err("Error: allocating irq %d (error = %d)\n", irq, err);
> > > +         goto fman_free;
> > > + }
> > 
> > Why IRQF_NO_SUSPEND?
> > 
> 
> It shouldn't be IRQF_NO_SUSPEND for now, removed. 

Why just "for now"?

-Scott

--
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