netdev - Re: [PATCH v6 5/9] net: stmmac: Add Loongson-specific register definitions

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]

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 20:30:24 +0800
From: Yanteng Si <siyanteng@...ngson.cn>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: hkallweit1@...il.com, peppe.cavallaro@...com,
 alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, joabreu@...opsys.com, fancer.lancer@...il.com,
 Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com, chenhuacai@...ngson.cn, linux@...linux.org.uk,
 guyinggang@...ngson.cn, netdev@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
 chris.chenfeiyang@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/9] net: stmmac: Add Loongson-specific register
 definitions


在 2023/12/18 23:28, Andrew Lunn 写道:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 06:22:04PM +0800, Yanteng Si wrote:
>> 在 2023/12/16 23:47, Andrew Lunn 写道:
>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 06:14:23PM +0800, Yanteng Si wrote:
>>>> There are two types of Loongson DWGMAC. The first type shares the same
>>>> register definitions and has similar logic as dwmac1000. The second type
>>>> uses several different register definitions.
>>>>
>>>> Simply put, we split some single bit fields into double bits fileds:
>>>>
>>>> DMA_INTR_ENA_NIE = 0x00040000 + 0x00020000
>>>> DMA_INTR_ENA_AIE = 0x00010000 + 0x00008000
>>>> DMA_STATUS_NIS = 0x00040000 + 0x00020000
>>>> DMA_STATUS_AIS = 0x00010000 + 0x00008000
>>>> DMA_STATUS_FBI = 0x00002000 + 0x00001000
>>> What is missing here is why? What are the second bits used for? And
>> We think it is necessary to distinguish rx and tx, so we split these bits
>> into two.
>>
>> this is:
>>
>> DMA_INTR_ENA_NIE = rx + tx
> O.K, so please add DMA_INTR_ENA_NIE_RX and DMA_INTR_ENA_NIE_TX
> #define's, etc.
OK!
>
>> We will care about it later. Because now we will support the minimum feature
>> set first, which can reduce everyone’s review pressure.
> Well, you failed with that, since you did not provide the details what
> these bits are. If you had directly handled the bits separately, it
> would of been obvious what they are for.

  It is because I did not give a clear reply to serge's comment, which 
was more detailed. :)


Thanks,

Yanteng

>
>        Andrew