[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231121150859.7f934627@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 15:08:59 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
<pabeni@...hat.com>, Robert Marko <robimarko@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot
<lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] net: phy: aquantia: make mailbox interface4
lsw addr mask more specific
On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 20:35:04 +0100 Christian Marangi wrote:
> It seems some arch (s390) require a more specific mask for FIELD_PREP
> and doesn't like using GENMASK(15, 2) for u16 values.
>
> Fix the compilation error by adding the additional mask for the BITS
> that the PHY ignore and AND the passed addr with the real mask that the
> PHY will parse for the mailbox interface 4 addr to make sure extra
> values are correctly removed.
Ah. Um. Pff. Erm. I'm not sure.
Endianness is not my strong suit but this code:
/* PHY expect addr in LE */
addr = (__force u32)cpu_to_le32(addr);
/* ... use (u16)(addr) */
/* ... use (u16)(addr >> 16) */
does not make sense to me.
You're operating on register values here, there is no endian.
Endian only exists when you store or load from memory. IOW, this:
addr = 0x12345678;
print((u16)addr);
print(addr >> 16);
will print the same exact thing regardless of the CPU endian.
Why did you put the byte swap in there?
--
pw-bot: cr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists