netdev - Re: [PATCH V6 net-next 06/11] net: Introduce a new MII time stamping interface.

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:   Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:57:12 -0800
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
        Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Wingman Kwok <w-kwok2@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 net-next 06/11] net: Introduce a new MII time stamping
 interface.

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:21:55AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> Forward declarations are considered bad.

Not by me!

> Please add a new patch to the
> series which moves code around first.

Sorry, I disagree.  For new drivers, sure, but for testing, production
drivers, moving code blocks around "just because" is only asking for
new bugs due to copy-pastos.

> When using phylink, not phylib, this call will not happen. You need to
> add a similar bit of code in phylink_mac_config().

Good to know.

> For the moment what you have is sufficient. I doubt anybody is using
> the dp83640 with phylink, and the new hardware you are targeting seems
> to be RGMII based, not SERDES, which is the main use case for PHYLINK.

Yeah, my impression is that the phyter will be the first and last phy
time stamping device ever created.  Designers reject this part because
it is 100 mbit only.  And there are no gigabit+ phys with time
stamping at all.

So I don't anticipate the phylink layer needing any of this time
stamping stuff in the foreseeable future.

Thanks,
Richard