linux-kernel - Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 1/6] net: stmmac: support future possible different internal phy mode

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, 30 Jun 2017 00:46:30 +0800
From:   icenowy@...c.io
To:     davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     clabbe.montjoie@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com, wens@...e.org,
        peppe.cavallaro@...com, alexandre.torgue@...com,
        andre.przywara@....com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 1/6] net: stmmac: support future
 possible different internal phy mode

在 2017-06-30 00:23，David Miller 写道：
> From: Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 11:28:01 +0200
> 
>> The current way to find if the phy is internal is to compare DT 
>> phy-mode
>> and emac_variant/internal_phy.
>> But it will negate a possible future SoC where an external PHY use the
>> same phy mode than the internal one.
>> 
>> By using phy-mode = "internal" we permit to have an external PHY with
>> the same mode than the internal one.
>> 
>> Reported-by: André Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
>> Signed-off-by: Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>
> 
> Series applied.

I think there's still some problems around for this patchset...
The definition of "internal" is internal *proprietary* PHY, but the
internal PHY of Allwinner SoCs seem to be MII...

See [1].

[1] 
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-June/516159.html

> 
> Please provide a proper "[PATCH 0/n] " header posting next time.