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  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:   Mon, 25 May 2020 02:36:29 +0000
From:   Andy Duan <fugang.duan@....com>
To:     "Fuzzey, Martin" <martin.fuzzey@...wbird.group>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net 1/4] net: ethernet: fec: move GPR register
 offset and bit into DT

From: Fuzzey, Martin <martin.fuzzey@...wbird.group> Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 5:56 PM
> Hi Andy,
> 
> > Fixes: da722186f654(net: fec: set GPR bit on suspend by DT
> > configuration)
> 
> Just a nitpick maybe but I don't really think this need as Fixes: tag.
> That commit didn't actually *break* anything AFAIK.
> It added WoL support for *some* SoCs that didn't have any in mainline and
> didn't hurt the others.
> Of course it turned out to be insufficient for the multiple FEC case so this
> patch series is a welcome improvement.
Sorry, not to hurt you intentionally, I think the commit da722186f654 break multiple instances.
Totally I accept your suggestion, it should be improvement !

> 
> 
> >  struct fec_devinfo {
> >         u32 quirks;
> > -       u8 stop_gpr_reg;
> > -       u8 stop_gpr_bit;
> >  };
> 
> This structure has become redundant now that it only contains a single
> u32 quirks field.
> So we *could* go back to storing the quirks bitmask directly in .driver_data as
> was done before.
> 
> It's a slight wastage to keep the, now unnecessary, indirection, though the
> size impact is small and it's only used at probe() time not on a hot path.
> 
> But switching back could be seen as code churn too...
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion on this, so just noting it to see what others think.
> 
> Martin

To make code clean, we should switch back. I will change it in V2.
Thanks again for your review.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists