netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next v2 12/12] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: add addressing mode to info

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: <20160614224425.GL12832@lunn.ch>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:44:25 +0200
From:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel@...oirfairelinux.com,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next v2 12/12] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: add addressing
 mode to info

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 06:24:17PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> writes:
> 
> >> -	ret = mdiobus_read_nested(bus, addr, reg);
> >> +	ret = mdiobus_read_nested(bus, sw_addr + addr, reg);
> >>  	if (ret < 0)
> >>  		return ret;
> >
> > If we are doing direct access, doesn't it means sw_addr is 0?
> >
> > So isn't this pointless?
> 
> 6060 has no indirect access and directly responds to 16 SMI addresses,
> regardless its chip address which can be strapped to either 0 or 16.

Ah! O.K.

wnr854t-setup.c uses 0.
rd88f6183ap-ge-setup.c uses 0.
wrt350n-v2-setup.c uses 0.
rd88f5181l-fxo-setup.c uses 0.
rd88f5181l-ge-setup.c uses 0.
mach-bf518/boards/ezbrd.c uses 0.

The 6060 is a very old device. I doubt we will get any new boards
contributed using it. We are also going to have trouble actually
finding a device with one in order to test a merged mv88e6xxx and
mv88e6060 driver.

So i say we ignore the possibility of an 6060 on 16, until one really
comes along.

> Question 2) is MV88E6XXX_FLAG_MULTI_CHIP confusing?

No, i think it is fine.

    Andrew