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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZCbWD7TiiCzxgWoI@shell.armlinux.org.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 13:46:07 +0100 From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk> To: "Radu Pirea (OSS)" <radu-nicolae.pirea@....nxp.com> Cc: andrew@...n.ch, hkallweit1@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] net: phy: introduce phy_reg_field interface On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 03:32:59PM +0300, Radu Pirea (OSS) wrote: > Some PHYs can be heavily modified between revisions, and the addresses of > the registers are changed and the register fields are moved from one > register to another. > > To integrate more PHYs in the same driver with the same register fields, > but these register fields were located in different registers at > different offsets, I introduced the phy_reg_fied structure. > > phy_reg_fied structure abstracts the register fields differences. Oh no, not more perliferation of different accessors... > +int phy_read_reg_field(struct phy_device *phydev, > + const struct phy_reg_field *reg_field) > +{ > + u16 mask; > + int ret; > + > + if (reg_field->size == 0) { > + phydev_warn(phydev, "Trying to read a reg field of size 0."); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + phy_lock_mdio_bus(phydev); > + if (reg_field->mmd) > + ret = __phy_read_mmd(phydev, reg_field->devad, > + reg_field->reg); > + else > + ret = __phy_read(phydev, reg_field->reg); > + phy_unlock_mdio_bus(phydev); > + > + if (ret < 0) > + return ret; > + > + mask = reg_field->size == 1 ? BIT(reg_field->offset) : > + GENMASK(reg_field->offset + reg_field->size - 1, reg_field->offset); > + ret &= mask; > + ret >>= reg_field->offset; > + > + return ret; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(phy_read_reg_field); I guess next we'll eventually see that we need __phy_read_reg_field which doesn't take the lock, so that several accesses can be done together. E.g. to access some form of paging mechanism. > +/** > + * phy_write_reg_field - Convenience function for writing a register field > + * on a given PHY. > + * @phydev: the phy_device struct > + * @reg_field: the phy_reg_field structure to be written > + * @val: value to write to @reg_field > + * > + * Return: 0 on success, -errno on failure. > + */ > +int phy_write_reg_field(struct phy_device *phydev, > + const struct phy_reg_field *reg_field, u16 val) > +{ > + u16 mask; > + u16 set; > + int ret; > + > + if (reg_field->size == 0) { > + phydev_warn(phydev, "Trying to write a reg field of size 0."); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + mask = reg_field->size == 1 ? BIT(reg_field->offset) : > + GENMASK(reg_field->offset + reg_field->size - 1, reg_field->offset); > + set = val << reg_field->offset; > + > + phy_lock_mdio_bus(phydev); > + if (reg_field->mmd) > + ret = __phy_modify_mmd_changed(phydev, reg_field->devad, > + reg_field->reg, mask, set); > + else > + ret = __phy_modify_changed(phydev, reg_field->reg, > + mask, set); > + phy_unlock_mdio_bus(phydev); > + > + return ret; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(phy_write_reg_field); More or less the same for this too. In order to properly review this, we need the patch which has the use case for these new accessors. Thanks. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists