netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/4] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Allow mv88e6xxx_smi

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: <292d4f15-c58b-3565-26ec-98a025b6adb3@free-electrons.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Dec 2016 15:56:34 +0100
From:   Romain Perier <romain.perier@...e-electrons.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Volodymyr Bendiuga <volodymyr.bendiuga@...il.com>
Cc:     Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
        Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
        Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Allow mv88e6xxx_smi_init() to be
 used at address 0x1

Hi Andrew,

Le 19/12/2016 à 15:38, Andrew Lunn a écrit :
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 03:16:06PM +0100, Romain Perier wrote:
>> Currently, the function mv88e6xxx_smi_init() returns -EINVAL if the bit
>> zero of sw_addr is 0x1. However, on some platforms, ethernet switches
>> are configured in Multi chip addressing mode and available at MDIO
>> address 0x1.
>
> Hi Romain
>
> What branch is this against? net-next?

Until last friday it was based onto next-20161216, I rebased onto the 
torvalds's tree this morning (so ~4.10-pre-rc1).

>
> Please see:
>
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg409156.html

Oh, it's already fixed, good. I did not see this patch :)

>
> It would be nicer to use Volodymyr, since it has been reviewed.


As the fix is already there, I will use it, sure.

Thanks,
Romain