netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/7] net: phy: add PHY_F_RXC_ALWAYS

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]

Message-ID: <c8602a95-3131-4c15-9ec5-4a5bdcae3ac9@lunn.ch>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 14:53:09 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Romain Gantois <romain.gantois@...tlin.com>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
	Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
	Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>,
	Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
	Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/7] net: phy: add PHY_F_RXC_ALWAYS_ON to PHY
 dev flags

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 02:02:12PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 02:55:50PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > @@ -768,6 +768,7 @@ struct phy_device {
> > >  
> > >  /* Generic phy_device::dev_flags */
> > >  #define PHY_F_NO_IRQ		0x80000000
> > > +#define PHY_F_RXC_ALWAYS_ON	BIT(30)
> > 
> > It is a bit odd mixing 0x numbers and BIT() macros for the same class
> > of thing. I would use 0x40000000, or convert PHY_F_NO_IRQ to BIT(31)
> 
> If I used 0x40000000, there would be review comments suggesting the use
> of BIT(). Can't win!

No, you cannot win, but at least it would be consistent :-)

    Andrew