netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: enetc: add definition for offset between eMAC and pMAC regs

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: <Y86BFyhhh1SA97dw@corigine.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 13:44:07 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Xiaoliang Yang <xiaoliang.yang_1@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: enetc: add definition for offset
 between eMAC and pMAC regs

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 01:24:11PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 05:29:33PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > +#define ENETC_PMAC_OFFSET	0x1000
> > > +
> > >  #define ENETC_PM0_CMD_CFG	0x8008
> > >  #define ENETC_PM1_CMD_CFG	0x9008
> > >  #define ENETC_PM0_TX_EN		BIT(0)
> > > @@ -280,57 +282,57 @@ enum enetc_bdr_type {TX, RX};
> > >  /* Port MAC counters: Port MAC 0 corresponds to the eMAC and
> > >   * Port MAC 1 to the pMAC.
> > >   */
> > > -#define ENETC_PM_REOCT(mac)	(0x8100 + 0x1000 * (mac))
> > > -#define ENETC_PM_RALN(mac)	(0x8110 + 0x1000 * (mac))
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > +#define ENETC_PM_REOCT(mac)	(0x8100 + ENETC_PMAC_OFFSET * (mac))
> > > +#define ENETC_PM_RALN(mac)	(0x8110 + ENETC_PMAC_OFFSET * (mac))
> > 
> > I'm not sure if it is an improvement, but did you consider something
> > like this? *completely untested*
> > 
> > #define ENETC_PM(mac, reg)	((reg) + ENETC_PMAC_OFFSET * (mac))
> > #define ENETC_PM_REOCT(mac)	ENETC_PM(mac, 0x8100)
> > #define ENETC_PM_RALN(mac)	ENETC_PM(mac, 0x8110)
> 
> Hmm, I appreciate you looking at the patch, but in the end, I just
> consider your proposed alternative to be a variation on the same theme,
> and not necessarily a better way of expressing the definitions.
> This means I wouldn't consider resending the patch set just to make this
> change.

Thanks for considering my idea. I've no objections to you not acting on it.