netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix port hidden register macros

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]

Date:   Sat, 24 Aug 2019 15:32:54 -0400
From:   Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
To:     Marek Behún <marek.behun@....cz>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        Marek Behún <marek.behun@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix port hidden
 register macros

Hi Marek,

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 23:25:57 +0200, Marek Behún <marek.behun@....cz> wrote:
>  /* Offset 0x1a: Magic undocumented errata register */

   /* Offset 0x1A: Reserved */

(nitpicking here, for consistency this other definitions as shown in docs.)

> -#define PORT_RESERVED_1A			0x1a
> -#define PORT_RESERVED_1A_BUSY			BIT(15)
> -#define PORT_RESERVED_1A_WRITE			BIT(14)
> -#define PORT_RESERVED_1A_READ			0
> -#define PORT_RESERVED_1A_PORT_SHIFT		5
> -#define PORT_RESERVED_1A_BLOCK			(0xf << 10)
> -#define PORT_RESERVED_1A_CTRL_PORT		4
> -#define PORT_RESERVED_1A_DATA_PORT		5
> +#define MV88E6XXX_PORT_RESERVED_1A		0x1a
> +#define MV88E6XXX_PORT_RESERVED_1A_BUSY		0x8000
> +#define MV88E6XXX_PORT_RESERVED_1A_WRITE	0x4000
> +#define MV88E6XXX_PORT_RESERVED_1A_READ		0x0000
> +#define MV88E6XXX_PORT_RESERVED_1A_PORT_SHIFT	5
> +#define MV88E6XXX_PORT_RESERVED_1A_BLOCK	0x3c00
> +#define MV88E6XXX_PORT_RESERVED_1A_CTRL_PORT	0x04
> +#define MV88E6XXX_PORT_RESERVED_1A_DATA_PORT	0x05

You are already using these macros in the previous patch. I guess you meant
to introduce this patch before. But since you are moving and renaming the
same code without functional changes, you may squash them together.


Thanks,

	Vivien