netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/9] net: ethernet: oa_tc6: implement OA TC6 configuration function

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]

Message-ID: <7b3179e2-ac53-497e-94c8-ac364f5b47c6@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 22:06:40 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
	corbet@....net, Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
	horms@...nel.org, casper.casan@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com,
	Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com, Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com,
	UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/9] net: ethernet: oa_tc6: implement OA TC6
 configuration function

> >> -struct oa_tc6 *oa_tc6_init(struct spi_device *spi, bool prote)
> >> +struct oa_tc6 *oa_tc6_init(struct spi_device *spi)
> > 
> > Was there a reason to have prote initially, and then remove it here?
> The reason is, control communication uses "protect". But in the first 
> patch there was no dt used. Later in this patch, dt used for all the 
> configuration parameters and this also part of that. That's why removed 
> and moved this to dt configuration.
> 
> What's your opinion? shall I keep as it is like this? or remove the 
> protect in the first two patches and introduce in this patch?

It will actually depend on what goes into the DT binding. If using
protections costs very little, i would just hard code it on. Maybe you
can run some iperf tests and see if it makes a measurable difference.

How fast an SPI bus are you using on your development board? If you
have a 50Mbps SPI bus, it does not even matter, since the media
bandwidth is just 10Mbps.

    Andrew