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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 15:19:24 +0000
From: Min Li <lnimi@...mail.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
CC: "richardcochran@...il.com" <richardcochran@...il.com>, "lee@...nel.org"
	<lee@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Min Li <min.li.xe@...esas.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v3 1/1] ptp: clockmatrix: support 32-bit address
 space


> 1. idtcm_output_enable() still seems to pass a 16-bit value as the module
>    parameter to idtcm_read() and idtcm_write(), which seems inconsistent
>    with this patch.
> 
> 2. Related to 1., get_output_base_addr() returns an int which either
>    encodes a negative error value (good) or a 32bit address (maybe not so
>    good).

Hi Simon

Thanks for pointing out those errors. I fixed them and sent another patch. 
For the int value returned by get_output_base_addr, it still works because
The expected addresses are 0x2010xxxx so they are still positive for an int.
 
> 
> Removing IDTCM_MAX_WRITE_COUNT seems nice, if it is unused.
> But this doesn't seem related to the rest of this patch, so perhaps it should
> be a separate patch.
> 

These minor changes came with one patch from our side and it is related to the change due to
the code that is not seen here in the official Linux repo. So I am hoping to push them all together.
For easier maintenance from our side :)

> 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/idt8a340_reg.h
> > b/include/linux/mfd/idt8a340_reg.h
> > index 0c706085c205..b680a0eb5f68 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mfd/idt8a340_reg.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/idt8a340_reg.h
> > @@ -7,20 +7,20 @@
> >  #ifndef HAVE_IDT8A340_REG
> >  #define HAVE_IDT8A340_REG
> >
> > -#define PAGE_ADDR_BASE                    0x0000
> > -#define PAGE_ADDR                         0x00fc
> 
> Likewise, cleaning up PAGE_ADDR_BASE and PAGE_ADDR doesn't seem
> strictly related to this patch. Though perhaps I am missing something obvious.
> 
> ...

The same reason as above.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists