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

From: Simon Horman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:58:27 +0100

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 <[email-masked]>

Hi Sean,

Nits aside, this looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <[email-masked]>

> 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.

> +}
> +#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.

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

...