netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next]smsc911x: Adding support for Micochip LAN9250 Ethernet controller

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: <20170429015855.GA32471@lunn.ch>
Date:   Sat, 29 Apr 2017 03:58:55 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     David.Cai@...rochip.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, steve.glendinning@...well.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next]smsc911x: Adding support for Micochip LAN9250
 Ethernet controller

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:28:32PM +0000, David.Cai@...rochip.com wrote:
> From: David Cai <david.cai@...rochip.com>
> 
> Adding support for Microchip LAN9250 Ethernet controller.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Cai <david.cai@...rochip.com>
> ---
> Changes
> V2
>  - email format changed
>  - remove unnecessary text in commit log Changes
> V3
>  - defined all supported Ethernet controller chip ID.
> V4
>  - changed 'if (pdata->generation == 4 && pdata->sub_generation)' to
>    'if ((pdata->idrev & 0xFFFF0000) == LAN9250)' for more readable
> 
>  drivers/net/ethernet/smsc/smsc911x.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  drivers/net/ethernet/smsc/smsc911x.h | 19 +++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/smsc/smsc911x.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/smsc/smsc911x.c
> index fa5ca09..0cf956d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/smsc/smsc911x.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/smsc/smsc911x.c
> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
>   *   LAN9215, LAN9216, LAN9217, LAN9218
>   *   LAN9210, LAN9211
>   *   LAN9220, LAN9221
> - *   LAN89218
> + *   LAN89218,LAN9250
>   *
>   */
>  
> @@ -104,6 +104,9 @@ struct smsc911x_data {
>  	/* used to decide which workarounds apply */
>  	unsigned int generation;
>  
> +	/* used to decide which sub generation product work arounds to apply */
> +	unsigned int sub_generation;

Isn't this now pointless? If it is not used anywhere, you should not
add it.

    Andrew