From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pandora.armlinux.org.uk (pandora.armlinux.org.uk [78.32.30.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE5D513BAF1; Sun, 11 May 2025 09:57:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=78.32.30.218 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746957452; cv=none; b=C5ivnMxvP9OpYmlaFfRvMket3Dhd14RfMXw5MYB0wHcA5IJebAxOiOZEfcnsYauS6ZrU6+YhBayeFpPmt3GfN24AAc6sIDOnrA1eE4cgn8c7pPK1kxNzCsuJmBZMLMlj1l+0rzL1qmk5+8ljNxVeqmwI+L3FyvsxDJw8965Pw1Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746957452; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DPJG4PvkAyLVxlGdfS4q/kBq/bWu/WF2ntWz4PAzrw4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=rcX6feQJC49dICJyQCWtGbG7gi9nw2PTPlbdglx+TB7HHpuPRZMBznmJZTJUgOGfYVIpJJ2gh0DAMLjInWlSXPvelaKsBfRxVRWa0T1RK7J5wuSDrReMHMJQNEdrc+lDDHqL8OsudknSzWVDmKw0/Pj2ifeZV+VgG8R81KZrRdA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=armlinux.org.uk; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=armlinux.org.uk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=armlinux.org.uk header.i=@armlinux.org.uk header.b=lNQdupnS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=78.32.30.218 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=armlinux.org.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=armlinux.org.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=armlinux.org.uk header.i=@armlinux.org.uk header.b="lNQdupnS" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=armlinux.org.uk; s=pandora-2019; h=Sender:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=+HkXY9uD0IJgliLTge+1QCfl90UxdVOyJJ6tTfPwFkw=; b=lNQdupnS2kvfwZbuZTFh4QZWxn v9xyxWJqe/r0AUDDCUpQyFlyJSxdYV3zRKlatBQztgqNaGXtAV1oNqCAnEL+ihEEqUCI2UATZyHxB E+LCD9A0UQFkGVvDkeLtm/ydm0k27fQrsKs+5uIdROO2+C7/OqUfTpeMNW2o2ASQEGHr1w8OQUYxM 0InHvXcW5ruIAwU5ay8YHxBKGk38YWZpsfbvdM3TMKGD5vbl0+Vm+SNG5oYnJPJnRKFPy0l3FPSLv BXE3O1ugQ/Aq4Cty/4d7hOJ18LqVxy+47Bq/ORjCwCmZF9pqBZKB8In7/Xuf/asP06aeB9pHys3rq c5wJQTfA==; Received: from shell.armlinux.org.uk ([fd8f:7570:feb6:1:5054:ff:fe00:4ec]:41920) by pandora.armlinux.org.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1uE3Qp-0003ox-20; Sun, 11 May 2025 10:57:15 +0100 Received: from linux by shell.armlinux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1uE3Qk-0001DM-38; Sun, 11 May 2025 10:57:10 +0100 Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 10:57:10 +0100 From: "Russell King (Oracle)" To: Christian Marangi Cc: Andrew Lunn , Heiner Kallweit , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Daniel Golle , Bartosz Golaszewski , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [net PATCH] net: phy: aquantia: fix wrong GENMASK define for LED_PROV_ACT_STRETCH Message-ID: References: <20250511090619.3453606-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250511090619.3453606-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com> Sender: Russell King (Oracle) On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 11:06:17AM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote: > In defining VEND1_GLOBAL_LED_PROV_ACT_STRETCH there was a typo where the > GENMASK definition was swapped. > > Fix it to prevent any kind of misconfiguration if ever this define will > be used in the future. I thought GENMASK() was supposed to warn about this kind of thing. I've questioned in the past whether GENMASK() is better than defining fields with hex numbers, and each time I see another repeat of this exact case, I re-question whether GENMASK() actually gives much benefit over hex numbers because it's just too easy to get the two arguments to GENMASK() swapped and it's never obvious that's happened. I don't remember there being a dribble of patches in the past correcting bitfields defined using hex numbers, but that seems common with GENMASK(). -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!