[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <df32b84d-a39d-7dfe-c172-040ecf16f9c5@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 11:29:02 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@...il.com>
Cc: jonas.gorski@...il.com, andrew@...n.ch, olteanv@...il.com,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: b53: mmap: fix device tree support
On 3/15/23 00:06, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 13:10:59 +0100 Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_mmap.c b/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_mmap.c
>> index e968322dfbf0..24ea2e19dfa6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_mmap.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_mmap.c
>> @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ static int b53_mmap_probe_of(struct platform_device *pdev,
>> if (of_property_read_u32(of_port, "reg", ®))
>> continue;
>>
>> - if (reg < B53_CPU_PORT)
>> + if (reg <= B53_CPU_PORT)
>> pdata->enabled_ports |= BIT(reg);
>
> Should we switch to B53_N_PORTS instead?
> That's the bound used by the local "for each port" macro:
>
> #define b53_for_each_port(dev, i) \
> for (i = 0; i < B53_N_PORTS; i++) \
> if (dev->enabled_ports & BIT(i))
Yes, checking against B53_N_PORTS would be a better check.
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists