netdev - Re: [net-next PATCHv6 0/2] net: ethernet: Socionext Netsec

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:   Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:01:37 +0530
From:   Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Andy Green <andy@...mcat.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCHv6 0/2] net: ethernet: Socionext Netsec

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
> On August 30, 2017 3:24:17 AM PDT, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com> wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>The OGMA/Netsec controller is used in latest SoC from
>>Socionext/Fujitsu.
>>
>>I am refreshing the patchset by basically using official name of the IP
>>from 'OGMA' to 'Netsec'. And the company is renamed too, from Fujitsu
>>to Socionext to better reflect the reality.
>>
>> I have addressed comments (that could be) on the last revision -->
>>https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4540651/
>>
>> Of course, I have scanned changes to the drivers/net/ethernet since
>>last submission and integrated whichever applicable and rebased the
>>driver on top of last rc.
>
> It does not appear to be at first glance, but I will just ask anyways, this is not yet another variant of stmmac glued just a little bit differently into the SoC right?
>
Sorry, no idea. I will be glad if we could reuse existing code.

Thanks.