netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: net: Add bindings for LiteETH

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: <CACPK8Xey50=7CGb--Myue-KzFLqGKWRMiW5j0z+fp4PLnYBUqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Aug 2021 03:00:28 +0000
From:   Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Karol Gugala <kgugala@...micro.com>,
        Mateusz Holenko <mholenko@...micro.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: net: Add bindings for LiteETH

On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 at 11:52, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:52 PM Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 18:44, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 05:17:25PM +0930, Joel Stanley wrote:
> >
> > > > +
> > > > +  interrupts:
> > > > +    maxItems: 1
> > > > +
> > >
> > > > +  rx-fifo-depth: true
> > > > +  tx-fifo-depth: true
> > >
> > > Needs a vendor prefix, type, description and constraints.
> >
> > These are the standard properties from the ethernet-controller.yaml. I
> > switched the driver to using those once I discovered they existed (v1
> > defined these in terms of slots, whereas the ethernet-controller
> > bindings use bytes).
>
> Indeed (grepping the wrong repo didn't work too well :) ).
>
> Still, I'd assume there's some valid range for this h/w you can
> define? Or 0 - 2^32 is valid?

0 would be problematic, but there's not really any bound on it.

I'll send a v3 with the reg-names documented. Thanks for the review.

Cheers,

Joel