netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 8/9] microchip: lan865x: add driver support for Microchip's LAN865X MACPHY

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: <1cc55d52-62b7-4665-b794-1d8048e42ab8@microchip.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 04:51:30 +0000
From: <Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com>
To: <andrew@...n.ch>
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 8/9] microchip: lan865x: add driver support
 for Microchip's LAN865X MACPHY

Hi Andrew,

On 31/10/23 6:23 pm, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
>> Ah ok, then it is supposed to be like below, isn't it?
>>
>> static int lan865x_set_mac_address(struct net_device *netdev, void *addr)
>> {
>>        struct sockaddr *address = addr;
>>        int ret;
>>
>>        if (netif_running(netdev))
>>                return -EBUSY;
>>
>>        ret = lan865x_set_hw_macaddr(netdev);
>>        if (ret)
>>                return ret;
>>
>>        eth_hw_addr_set(netdev, address->sa_data);
>>
>>        return 0;
>> }
> 
> Yes, that is better. In practice, its probably not an issue, setting
> the MAC address will never fail, but it is good to get right, just in
> case.
Ok, thanks.

Best Regards,
Parthiban V
> 
>          Andrew