netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] dt-binding: net: sfp binding documentation

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

Date:   Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:06:53 +0300
From:   Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dt-binding: net: sfp binding documentation

Hi Russell,

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 01:53:17PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 01:28:06PM +0300, Baruch Siach wrote:
> > Add device-tree binding documentation SFP transceivers. Support for SFP
> > transceivers has been recently introduced (drivers/net/phy/sfp.c).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>
> > ---
> > 
> > The SFP driver is on net-next.
> > 
> > Not sure about the rate-select-gpio property name. The SFP+ standard
> > (not supported yet) uses two signals, RS0 and RS1. RS0 is compatible
> > with the SFP rate select signal, while RS1 controls the Tx rate.
> 
> SFP+ is usable with this, but the platforms I have do not wire the
> rate select pins on the SFP+ sockets to GPIOs, but hard-wire them.

So maybe naming this signal 'rate-select0-gpio' would make it more future 
(SPF+) proof? Or 'rate-select-rx-gpio'?

> Note that I didn't expect the SFP code to just get merged with very
> little in the way of real in-depth review of things like:
> 
> * the way the SFP code works, and its structure
> * analysis of the bindings checking that they're fit for everyone's
>   purposes.

I was also surprised to see the "sff,sfp" compatible string with no ack from 
DT maintainers. Hence this RFC.

> The implementation that I've designed is based around the boards that
> I have access to and the various public SFP documentation.  I think
> documenting the bindings suggests that they are stable - I don't think
> we're really ready to make that assertion yet - there may be things
> that have been missed which will only come up when other people start
> using this code.

baruch

-- 
     http://baruch.siach.name/blog/                  ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
   - baruch@...s.co.il - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -