netdev - RE: [RFC/PATCH 02/18] ravb: Rename the variables "no_ptp_cfg_active" and "ptp_cfg

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: <OS0PR01MB59228BE53DE8DB7AA491F03F86A39@OS0PR01MB5922.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 16:35:45 +0000
From:   Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>
To:     Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     Prabhakar Mahadev Lad <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...il.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>,
        Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chris Paterson <Chris.Paterson2@...esas.com>,
        Biju Das <biju.das@...renesas.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC/PATCH 02/18] ravb: Rename the variables "no_ptp_cfg_active"
 and "ptp_cfg_active"

Hi Sergei,

Thanks for the feedback.

> -----Original Message-----
> Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 02/18] ravb: Rename the variables
> "no_ptp_cfg_active" and "ptp_cfg_active"
> 
> On 9/23/21 5:07 PM, Biju Das wrote:
> 
> > Rename the variable "no_ptp_cfg_active" with "no_gptp" with inverted
> > checks and "ptp_cfg_active" with "ccc_gac".
> 
>    That's not exactly rename, no? At least for the 1st case...

This is what we agreed as per last discussion[1]. 

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-renesas-soc/patch/20210825070154.14336-5-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com/


> 
> > There is no functional change.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>
> > Suggested-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h      |  4 ++--
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c | 25
> > ++++++++++++------------
> >  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h
> > index 7363abae6e59..0ce0c13ef8cb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h
> > @@ -1000,8 +1000,8 @@ struct ravb_hw_info {
> >  	unsigned internal_delay:1;	/* AVB-DMAC has internal delays */
> >  	unsigned tx_counters:1;		/* E-MAC has TX counters */
> >  	unsigned multi_irqs:1;		/* AVB-DMAC and E-MAC has multiple
> irqs */
> > -	unsigned no_ptp_cfg_active:1;	/* AVB-DMAC does not support gPTP
> active in config mode */
> > -	unsigned ptp_cfg_active:1;	/* AVB-DMAC has gPTP support active in
> config mode */
> > +	unsigned no_gptp:1;		/* AVB-DMAC does not support gPTP
> feature */
> 
>    Judging on the flag usage (which ensues using logical not in every
> case), I'd suggest to invert this flag and call it 'gptp'...

We have the following cases 
Case 1) On R-Car Gen3, gPTP support is active in config mode.
Case 2) On R-Car Gen2, gPTP support is not active in config mode.
Case 3) RZ/G2L does not support the gPTP feature.

And I came up with patches [1] and [2]. Then as per discussion we agreed for gPTP support active in config(ccc_gac) which take care of Case 1, no_gptp which take care of case 3 
And the cases not under 1 and 3 falls to 2.

[1]
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-renesas-soc/patch/20210825070154.14336-4-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com/
[2]
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-renesas-soc/patch/20210825070154.14336-5-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com/

So please clear on your proposals to accomodate the 3 use cases as mentioned below.

Case 1) On R-Car Gen3, gPTP support is active in config mode.
Case 2) On R-Car Gen2, gPTP support is not active in config mode.
Case 3) RZ/G2L does not support the gPTP feature.

Regards,
Biju






> 
> [...]
> 
> MBR, Sergey