netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] mlxsw: reg: Add Management Capabilities Mask Register

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]

Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:53:34 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
        Amit Cohen <amcohen@...dia.com>, mlxsw@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] mlxsw: reg: Add Management Capabilities
 Mask Register

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:35:24AM +0200, Petr Machata wrote:
> 
> Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 05:49:31PM +0100, Petr Machata wrote:
> >> From: Amit Cohen <amcohen@...dia.com>
> >> 
> >> MCAM register reports the device supported management features. Querying
> >> this register exposes if features are supported with the current firmware
> >> version in the current ASIC. Then, the drive can separate between different
> >> implementations dynamically.
> >> 
> >> MCAM register supports querying whether a new reset flow (which includes
> >> PCI reset) is supported or not. Add support for the register as preparation
> >> for support of the new reset flow.
> >> 
> >> Note that the access to the bits in the field 'mng_feature_cap_mask' is
> >> not same to other mask fields in other registers. In most of the cases
> >> bit #0 is the first one in the last dword, in MCAM register, bits #0-#31
> >> are in the first dword and so on. Declare the mask field using bits arrays
> >> per dword to simplify the access.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Amit Cohen <amcohen@...dia.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
> >
> > I'm fine with this patch, and offered a Reviewed-by tag in another email.
> > But when sending that I forgot the minor nit below.
> > Please regard it as informational only.
> >
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/reg.h | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 74 insertions(+)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/reg.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/reg.h
> >> index 0d7d5e28945a..c4446085ebc5 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/reg.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/reg.h
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> +static inline void
> >> +mlxsw_reg_mcam_unpack(char *payload,
> >> +		      enum mlxsw_reg_mcam_mng_feature_cap_mask_bits bit,
> >> +		      bool *p_mng_feature_cap_val)
> >> +{
> >> +	int offset = bit % (MLXSW_REG_BYTES_PER_DWORD * BITS_PER_BYTE);
> >> +	int dword = bit / (MLXSW_REG_BYTES_PER_DWORD * BITS_PER_BYTE);
> >
> > nit: checkpatch seems mildly upset that there is no blank line here.
> 
> Yes, thanks for pointing this out. I saw that, too. The complaint is
> that there should be a blank line after the declaration block, but the
> next line is still a part of the declaration block.

Yes, right you are.
Sorry for missing that.

> 
> >> +	u8 (*getters[])(const char *, u16) = {
> >> +		mlxsw_reg_mcam_mng_feature_cap_mask_dw0_get,
> >> +		mlxsw_reg_mcam_mng_feature_cap_mask_dw1_get,
> >> +		mlxsw_reg_mcam_mng_feature_cap_mask_dw2_get,
> >> +		mlxsw_reg_mcam_mng_feature_cap_mask_dw3_get,
> >> +	};
>