netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: fec: stop the "rcv is not +last, " error messages

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:	Thu, 31 Mar 2016 07:56:58 -0300
From:	Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
To:	Fugang Duan <fugang.duan@....com>
Cc:	Greg Ungerer <gerg@...inux.org>,
	Troy Kisky <troy.kisky@...ndarydevices.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fec: stop the "rcv is not +last, " error messages

Hi Andy,

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Fugang Duan <fugang.duan@....com> wrote:
>
> Fabio, we cannot do it like this that may cause confused for the quirk flag "FEC_QUIRK_HAS_RACC".

We can treat FEC_QUIRK_HAS_RACC flag as "this is a non-Coldfire SoC".

>
>
> Hi, Greg,
>
> The header file fec.h define the FEC_FTRL as below,  if ColdFire SoC has no this register,  we may remove the define in here and define the register according to SOC type. For example, it is ColdFire Soc, define it as 0xFFF. Is it  feasible ?
>

This is even worse IMHO. We should not write to a 'fake' register
offset of 0xFFF.