netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v2 1/2] net: phy: introduce phy_id_compare

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: <68ab398f.050a0220.29c994.a368@mx.google.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:10:52 +0200
From: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v2 1/2] net: phy: introduce
 phy_id_compare_vendor() PHY ID helper

On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 06:08:34PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 03:44:28PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > Introduce phy_id_compare_vendor() PHY ID helper to compare a PHY ID with
> > the PHY ID Vendor using the generic PHY ID Vendor mask.
> > 
> > While at it also rework the PHY_ID_MATCH macro and move the mask to
> > dedicated define so that PHY driver can make use of the mask if needed.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
> 
> Hi Christian
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> 
> > +/**
> > + * phy_id_compare_vendor - compare @id with @vendor mask
> > + * @id: PHY ID
> > + * @vendor_mask: PHY Vendor mask
> > + *
> > + * Return: true if the bits from @id match @vendor using the
> > + *	   generic PHY Vendor mask.
> > + */
> > +static inline bool phy_id_compare_vendor(u32 id, u32 vendor_mask)
> > +{
> > +	return phy_id_compare(id, vendor_mask, PHY_ID_MATCH_VENDOR_MASK);
> > +}
> > +
> 
> broadcom.c:	if (BRCM_PHY_MODEL(phydev) == PHY_ID_BCM50610 ||
> broadcom.c:	    BRCM_PHY_MODEL(phydev) == PHY_ID_BCM50610M) {
> broadcom.c:	if (BRCM_PHY_MODEL(phydev) == PHY_ID_BCM57780) {
> broadcom.c:	if ((BRCM_PHY_MODEL(phydev) == PHY_ID_BCM50610 ||
> broadcom.c:	     BRCM_PHY_MODEL(phydev) == PHY_ID_BCM50610M) &&
> broadcom.c:		if (BRCM_PHY_MODEL(phydev) == PHY_ID_BCM54210E ||
> broadcom.c:		    BRCM_PHY_MODEL(phydev) == PHY_ID_BCM54810 ||
> broadcom.c:		    BRCM_PHY_MODEL(phydev) == PHY_ID_BCM54811)
> broadcom.c:	if ((BRCM_PHY_MODEL(phydev) == PHY_ID_BCM50610 ||
> broadcom.c:	     BRCM_PHY_MODEL(phydev) == PHY_ID_BCM50610M) &&
> 
> It looks like there is a use case of phy_id_compare_model(), if you
> feel like adding it.
> 

Thanks for pointing this out, I wasn't sure to add a _model() variant as
there wasn't an user for it. I will submit a new series after this gets
merged introducing also this variant.

-- 
	Ansuel