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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 18:49:12 +0100 From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>, Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "moderated list:ARM SUB-ARCHITECTURES" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 00/10] net: dsa: Support for pdata in dsa2 On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 09:40:24AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 01/15/2017 03:08 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:47:03PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> This is not exactly new, and was sent before, although back then, I did not > >> have an user of the pre-declared MDIO board information, but now we do. Note > >> that I have additional changes queued up to have b53 register platform data for > >> MIPS bcm47xx and bcm63xx. > >> > >> Yes I know that we should have the Orion platforms eventually be converted to > >> Device Tree, but until that happens, I don't want any remaining users of the > >> old "dsa" platform device (hence the previous DTS submissions for ARM/mvebu) > >> and, there will be platforms out there that most likely won't never see DT > >> coming their way (BCM47xx is almost 100% sure, BCM63xx maybe not in a distant > >> future). > >> > >> We would probably want the whole series to be merged via David Miller's tree > >> to simplify things. > >> > >> Greg, can you Ack/Nack patch 5 since it touched the core LDD? > > > > I've NAKed them for now, you need to describe what you are trying to do > > here, as it doesn't make any sense to me at the moment. > > For one, this is moving *existing* code from net/dsa/dsa.c part into the > device core for device_find_class() and part into the network device > core for dev_to_net_device(). Patch 8 is where this actually gets used. > See my individual replies for more details. > > Even though the existing code is there in net/dsa/dsa.c, at this point, > and for the sake of getting these patches merged via David, I can > probably just keep it where it is (like what patch series v1 did) and > just namespace it with dsa_. Later on, if this is deemed valuable to > other parts of the kernel, I can try to relocate it to the device core, > does that sound acceptable? Nope! I really want to try to understand what you all are doing with the device tree that you feel that blindly walking it actually comes up with a valid result. See my other email about wanting to see a tree, we can take it from that thread to try to consolidate all of these different ones. And sorry, I know you are just trying to move code around, but this isn't the first time this has come up, and I think it needs to be resolved properly. thanks, greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists