netdev - Re: [PATCH v17 05/22] sfc: setup cxl component regs and set media ready

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9656c515-48d1-4740-bcae-9b5bf3899e47@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2025 14:14:33 +0100
From: Alejandro Lucero Palau <alucerop@....com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
 alejandro.lucero-palau@....com
Cc: linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 dan.j.williams@...el.com, edward.cree@....com, davem@...emloft.net,
 kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dave.jiang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 05/22] sfc: setup cxl component regs and set media
 ready


On 6/27/25 09:45, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:13:38 +0100
> alejandro.lucero-palau@....com wrote:
>
>> From: Alejandro Lucero <alucerop@....com>
>>
>> Use cxl code for registers discovery and mapping regarding cxl component
>> regs and validate registers found are as expected.
>>
>> Set media ready explicitly as there is no means for doing so without
>> a mailbox, and without the related cxl register, not mandatory for type2.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alucerop@....com>
> Few things came to mind reading later patches...
>
> Some of the calls in here register extra devm stuff.  So, given we just
> eat any errors in this cxl setup in my mind we should clean them up.
>
> The devres group approach suggested earlier deals with that for you as
> all the CXL devm stuff will end up in that group and you can tear it
> down on error in efx_cxl_init()


This adds to your previous concern for using devres group, but after 
looking at it, I think from a netdev point of view is preferable to keep 
this out. Moreover, once I got Dan's review tag, I prefer to act quickly ;-)


But I will add the comments you advised to instead for making it clearer 
for reviewers.


Thank you!