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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 11 Sep 2022 16:53:20 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <>
To:     Mattias Forsblad <>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <>,,
        Vivien Didelot <>,
        Florian Fainelli <>,
        "David S . Miller" <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Paolo Abeni <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 4/6] net: dsa: mv88e6xxxx: Add RMU

On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 08:37:17AM +0200, Mattias Forsblad wrote:
> >> +	chip->rmu.rmu_ops->get_rmon = mv88e6xxx_rmu_stats_get;
> >> +
> >> +	if (chip->info->ops->rmu_disable)
> >> +		return chip->info->ops->rmu_disable(chip);
> > 
> > Why is a setup function calling disable?
> So Vladimir Oltean commented before:
> "I think it's very important for the RMU to still start as disabled.
> You enable it dynamically when the master goes up."

This, plus the fact that mv88e6xxx_rmu_setup() already exists in the
tree, and calls chip->info->ops->rmu_disable(). It seems like that
doesn't need to change. Mattias is moving it around, and makes it seem
as if something is being changed. Maybe simple code movement could be
split into a separate change.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists