netdev - Re: [PATCHv4 2/3] net: socionext: Add Synquacer NetSec driver

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: <CAKv+Gu8P_q0m4A_G40C8H5BxN+M+4qj8XnrKx0LWsc=3ftihmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:40:28 +0000
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
Cc:     "<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...aro.org>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu@...aro.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 2/3] net: socionext: Add Synquacer NetSec driver

On 23 December 2017 at 15:01, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
> <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On 23 December 2017 at 05:45,  <jassisinghbrar@...il.com> wrote:
>>> From: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
>>>
>>> This driver adds support for Socionext "netsec" IP Gigabit
>>> Ethernet + PHY IP used in the Synquacer SC2A11 SoC.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/net/ethernet/Kconfig            |    1 +
>>>  drivers/net/ethernet/Makefile           |    1 +
>>>  drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/Kconfig  |   29 +
>>>  drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/Makefile |    1 +
>>>  drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/netsec.c | 1844 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  5 files changed, 1876 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/Kconfig
>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/Makefile
>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/netsec.c
>>>
>> ...
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/netsec.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/netsec.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..6af047b
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/netsec.c
>> ...
>>> +static int netsec_netdev_load_ucode_region(struct netsec_priv *priv, u32 reg,
>>> +                                          u32 addr_h, u32 addr_l, u32 size)
>>> +{
>>> +       u64 base = (u64)addr_h << 32 | addr_l;
>>> +       void __iomem *ucode;
>>> +       u32 i;
>>> +
>>> +       ucode = ioremap(base, size * sizeof(u32));
>>> +       if (!ucode)
>>> +               return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> +       for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
>>> +               netsec_write(priv, reg, readl(ucode + i));
>>> +
>>
>> This is incorrect. The microcode is written one u32 word at a time,
>> and indexing ucode like this results in byte indexing, not u32
>> indexing.
>>
> Ouch! careless mistake. I was too eager to get done with netsec before
> I leave for holidays.
>
>> I changed the ucode declaration locally to
>>
>> u32 __iomem *ucode;
>>
>> and now everything works fine again.
>>
> Or we keep the void pointer but do    readl(ucode + i * 4)  ?
>

Whichever you prefer.

>
>>
>>> +       iounmap(ucode);
>>> +       return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>> ...
>>> +static int netsec_register_mdio(struct netsec_priv *priv, u32 phy_addr)
>>> +{
>>> +       struct mii_bus *bus;
>>> +       int ret;
>>> +
>>> +       bus = devm_mdiobus_alloc(priv->dev);
>>> +       if (!bus)
>>> +               return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> +       snprintf(bus->id, MII_BUS_ID_SIZE, "%s", dev_name(priv->dev));
>>> +       bus->priv = priv;
>>> +       bus->name = "SNI NETSEC MDIO";
>>> +       bus->read = netsec_phy_read;
>>> +       bus->write = netsec_phy_write;
>>> +       bus->parent = priv->dev;
>>> +       priv->mii_bus = bus;
>>> +
>>> +       if (dev_of_node(priv->dev)) {
>>> +               struct device_node *mdio_node, *parent = dev_of_node(priv->dev);
>>> +
>>> +               mdio_node = of_get_child_by_name(parent, "mdio");
>>> +               if (mdio_node) {
>>> +                       parent = mdio_node;
>>> +               } else {
>>> +                       /* older f/w doesn't populate the mdio subnode,
>>> +                        * allow relaxed upgrade of f/w in due time.
>>> +                        */
>>> +                       dev_err(priv->dev, "Upgrade f/w for mdio subnode!\n");
>>
>> I wouldn't mind if you dropped this fallback altogether, and would
>> simply stick with the new binding only. However, if you prefer to keep
>> it, could you change this to dev_info()? It is not really an error
>> condition, and dev_err/dev_warns have the annoying tendency to pierce
>> through 'quiet' boot splashes.
>>
> Yes, it should have been dev_info. But I would like to keep it,
> atleast for a couple months. For example, my board needs jtag to
> upgrade f/w.
>

Fair enough.

> Thanks.

Likewise! And happy holidays.