netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] microchipT1phy: Add driver for Microchip LAN87XX T1 PHYs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180426122743.GB13467@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 26 Apr 2018 14:27:43 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Nisar.Sayed@...rochip.com
Cc:     f.fainelli@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] microchipT1phy: Add driver for Microchip
 LAN87XX T1 PHYs

> Fine, will change the filename.

> The reason for moving to separate file is that we have a series of
> T1 standard PHYs, which support cable diagnostics, signal quality
> indicator(SQI) and sleep and wakeup (TC10) support etc. we planned
> to keep all T1 standard PHYs separate to support additional features
> supported by these PHYs.

Is there anything shared with the other microchip PHYs? If there is
potential for code sharing, you should do it.

> > > + */
> > > +#ifndef _MICROCHIPT1PHY_H_
> > > +#define _MICROCHIPT1PHY_H_
> > > +
> > > +/* Interrupt Source Register */
> > > +#define LAN87XX_INTERRUPT_SOURCE                (0x18)
> > > +
> > > +/* Interrupt Mask Register */
> > > +#define LAN87XX_INTERRUPT_MASK                  (0x19)
> > > +#define LAN87XX_MASK_LINK_UP                    (0x0004)
> > > +#define LAN87XX_MASK_LINK_DOWN                  (0x0002)
> > 
> > What's the point of that header file if all definitions are consumed by the
> > same driver?
> > 
> 
> We have planned a series of patches where we planned to use this further.

Are you adding multiple files which share the header? If not, just add
the defines to the C code.

    Andrew