netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net: ethernet: sun4i-emac: replace magic number with macro

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:   Mon, 10 Jan 2022 09:28:36 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>
Cc:     Conley Lee <conleylee@...mail.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        mripard@...nel.org, wens@...e.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: ethernet: sun4i-emac: replace magic number with
 macro

On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 14:56:35 +0100 Corentin Labbe wrote:
> > @@ -61,7 +62,21 @@
> >  #define EMAC_RX_IO_DATA_STATUS_OK	(1 << 7)
> >  #define EMAC_RX_FBC_REG		(0x50)
> >  #define EMAC_INT_CTL_REG	(0x54)
> > +#define EMAC_INT_CTL_RX_EN	(1 << 8)
> > +#define EMAC_INT_CTL_TX0_EN	(1)
> > +#define EMAC_INT_CTL_TX1_EN	(1 << 1)
> > +#define EMAC_INT_CTL_TX_EN	(EMAC_INT_CTL_TX0_EN | EMAC_INT_CTL_TX1_EN)
> > +#define EMAC_INT_CTL_TX0_ABRT_EN	(0x1 << 2)
> > +#define EMAC_INT_CTL_TX1_ABRT_EN	(0x1 << 3)
> > +#define EMAC_INT_CTL_TX_ABRT_EN	(EMAC_INT_CTL_TX0_ABRT_EN | EMAC_INT_CTL_TX1_ABRT_EN)
> >  #define EMAC_INT_STA_REG	(0x58)
> > +#define EMAC_INT_STA_TX0_COMPLETE	(0x1)
> > +#define EMAC_INT_STA_TX1_COMPLETE	(0x1 << 1)
> > +#define EMAC_INT_STA_TX_COMPLETE	(EMAC_INT_STA_TX0_COMPLETE | EMAC_INT_STA_TX1_COMPLETE)
> > +#define EMAC_INT_STA_TX0_ABRT	(0x1 << 2)
> > +#define EMAC_INT_STA_TX1_ABRT	(0x1 << 3)
> > +#define EMAC_INT_STA_TX_ABRT	(EMAC_INT_STA_TX0_ABRT | EMAC_INT_STA_TX1_ABRT)
> > +#define EMAC_INT_STA_RX_COMPLETE	(0x1 << 8)  
> 
> As proposed by checkpatch, I thing there are several place (like all
> EMAC_INT_STA) where you could use BIT(x) instead of (0xX << x)

That's not a hard requirement, if the driver already uses the shift you
can leave your code as is, some upstream developers actually prefer to
avoid the BIT() macro.