Re: [PATCH net-next v3 6/9] net: sunhme: Consolidate mac address initialization

Sean Anderson
2023-03-18T15:31:26Z

On 3/18/23 04:58, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 08:36:10PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> The mac address initialization is braodly the same between PCI and SBUS,
>> and one was clearly copied from the other. Consolidate them. We still have
>> to have some ifdefs because pci_(un)map_rom is only implemented for PCI,
>> and idprom is only implemented for SPARC.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com>
>
> Hi Sean,
>
> Nits aside, this looks good to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunhme.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunhme.c
>> index 3072578c334a..c2737f26afbe 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunhme.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunhme.c
>
> ...
>
>> +static void __maybe_unused get_hme_mac_nonsparc(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>> + unsigned char *dev_addr)
>> +{
>> + size_t size;
>> + void __iomem *p = pci_map_rom(pdev, &size);
>
> nit: reverse xmas tree - longest line to shortest - would be nice here.
>
> void __iomem *p;
> size_t size;
>
> p = pci_map_rom(pdev, &size);
>
>> +
>> + if (p) {
>> + int index = 0;
>> + int found;
>> +
>> + if (is_quattro_p(pdev))
>> + index = PCI_SLOT(pdev->devfn);
>> +
>> + found = readb(p) == 0x55 &&
>> + readb(p + 1) == 0xaa &&
>> + find_eth_addr_in_vpd(p, (64 * 1024), index, dev_addr);
>> + pci_unmap_rom(pdev, p);
>> + if (found)
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* Sun MAC prefix then 3 random bytes. */
>> + dev_addr[0] = 0x08;
>> + dev_addr[1] = 0x00;
>> + dev_addr[2] = 0x20;
>> + get_random_bytes(&dev_addr[3], 3);
>
> nit: Maybe as a follow-up using eth_hw_addr_random() could be considered here.

Yes, I would like to come back to this later.

>> +}
>> +#endif /* !(CONFIG_SPARC) */
>
> ...
>
>> static int happy_meal_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>> const struct pci_device_id *ent)
>> {
>> struct quattro *qp = NULL;
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_SPARC
>> - struct device_node *dp;
>> -#endif
>> + struct device_node *dp = NULL;
>
> nit: if dp was added above qp then then
> things would move closer to reverse xmas tree.
>
>> struct happy_meal *hp;
>> struct net_device *dev;
>> void __iomem *hpreg_base;
>> struct resource *hpreg_res;
>> - int i, qfe_slot = -1;
>> + int qfe_slot = -1;
>
> nit: if qfe_slot was added below prom_name[64] then then
> things would move closer to reverse xmas tree.

This is why I dislike this style...

>> char prom_name[64];
>> - u8 addr[ETH_ALEN];
>> int err;
>>
>> /* Now make sure pci_dev cookie is there. */
>
> ...