netdev - RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v13 net-next 04/15] net: mvpp2: always compare hw-version vs MVPP21

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: <CO6PR18MB3873C8DBA4B12A8E859A7598B08C9@CO6PR18MB3873.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:10:23 +0000
From:   Stefan Chulski <stefanc@...vell.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com" <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>,
        Yan Markman <ymarkman@...vell.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "mw@...ihalf.com" <mw@...ihalf.com>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "atenart@...nel.org" <atenart@...nel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com" <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
        "gregory.clement@...tlin.com" <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v13 net-next 04/15] net: mvpp2: always compare
 hw-version vs MVPP21

> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:48:51PM +0200, stefanc@...vell.com wrote:
> > @@ -1199,7 +1199,7 @@ static bool mvpp2_port_supports_xlg(struct
> > mvpp2_port *port)
> >
> >  static bool mvpp2_port_supports_rgmii(struct mvpp2_port *port)  {
> > -	return !(port->priv->hw_version == MVPP22 && port->gop_id == 0);
> > +	return !(port->priv->hw_version != MVPP21 && port->gop_id == 0);
> 
> I'm still very much of the opinion (as raised several revisions back) that using
> > MVPP21 or >= MVPP22 would be a lot better - especially when we have
> situations like this. Having negatives within negatives does not help
> readability.


Ok, I would update in next series.

Thanks,
Stefan