netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] net: driver: stmmac: extend CSR calc support

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: <35fd8e73-2225-4644-82f1-037294710d30@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 14:09:56 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: "Jan Petrous (OSS)" <jan.petrous@....nxp.com>, "David S. Miller"
	<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski
	<kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Rob Herring
	<robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
	<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, "Jose
 Abreu" <joabreu@...opsys.com>, Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
	Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit
	<hkallweit1@...il.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Richard Cochran
	<richardcochran@...il.com>, Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com"
	<linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, dl-S32 <S32@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] net: driver: stmmac: extend CSR calc support



On 8/18/2024 2:50 PM, Jan Petrous (OSS) wrote:
> Add support for CSR clock range up to 800 MHz.
> 
> When in, fix STMMAC_CSR_250_300M divider comment.
> 

The phrasing of this was somewhat confusing. I would also have chosen to
do this as a separate fix, since it makes reading the change somewhat
more difficult. A separate change could also explain how it was wrong in
the first place and add more context.

Either way, I think its a minor enough change and it only affects a code
comment. Not a huge deal.

Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>