linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] net: stmicro: eQOS IP Core

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e715ce49-769d-3098-cd04-46e435189fbc@synopsys.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:27:45 +0000
From:   Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
CC:     <peppe.cavallaro@...com>, <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: stmicro: eQOS IP Core

Às 4:34 PM de 1/20/2017, David Miller escreveu:
> From: Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:30:41 +0000
> 
>> Charade of renames? It is a bit strong, don't you agree?
> 
> Not at all.

To avoid this kind of "charade" comments, I sent an RFC, not an official patch
to be applied. Just a suggestion to be analysed by network/ developers.

> 
>> So you suggest to keep the driver called as dwmac4 when the IP is in fact eQOS?
>> Where do you suggest to put the eQOS 5.x features?
> 
> Since you are adding the new code, you can name the functions that implement
> eQOS 5.x support however you like.  You don't have to rename the dwmac4 code
> in order to add support for new chip families.
> 

The rename suggestion of the dwmac4_* files was because it is stating that they
are for a GMAC4 IP Core that does not exist. The controller is eQOS that started
in version 4.x and now is going to release a 5.x. My sugestion intention is to
put things clear and well structured to everyone that wish to use the driver in
the future.

I understand that you maintain a busy subsystem, and backport is a pain, but it
shouldn't avoid you improving its structure. You have duplicated drivers
targeting the same IPs and I just trying to puts things clear to avoid that in
the future.

I am going to focus developing the new features for the eQOS IP, and if sometime
you think about organizing or change the backport workflow I am available to
help you.

Joao Pinto