netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 08/12] net: stmmac: starfive

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:   Tue, 7 Mar 2023 09:50:46 +0800
From:   Guo Samin <samin.guo@...rfivetech.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <emil.renner.berthing@...onical.com>
CC:     <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>,
        Yanhong Wang <yanhong.wang@...rfivetech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/12] net: stmmac: starfive_dmac: Add phy interface
 settings



在 2023/3/6 21:06:20, Andrew Lunn 写道:
>> Ugh, you're right. Both the syscon block, the register offset and the
>> bit position in those registers are different from gmac0 to gmac1, and
>> since we need a phandle to the syscon block anyway passing those two
>> other parameters as arguments is probably the nicest solution. For the
>> next version I'd change the 2nd argument from mask to the bit position
>> though. It seems the field is always 3 bits wide and this makes it a
>> little clearer that we're not just putting register values in the
>> device tree.
> 
> I prefer bit position over mask.
> 
> But please fully document this in the device tree. This is something a
> board developer is going to get wrong, because they assume MAC blocks
> are identical, and normally need identical configuration.
> 
> I assume this is also a hardware 'bug', and the next generation of the
> silicon will have this fixed? So this will go away?
> 
> 	Andrew


Hi Andrew, Yes, the hardware design does not take into account the feasibility of the software.
The next version will be fixed. Thank you. 
I will use bit position instead of mask, which is described in detail in the document.

Best regards,
Samin

-- 
Best regards,
Samin