linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] dt-bindings: net: mscc-miim: add lan966x compatible

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:   Sun, 13 Mar 2022 18:56:07 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
        Kavyasree Kotagiri <kavyasree.kotagiri@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] dt-bindings: net: mscc-miim: add lan966x
 compatible

On 13/03/2022 17:30, Michael Walle wrote:
> [adding Horatiu and Kavyasree from Microchip]
> 
> Am 2022-03-13 17:10, schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>> On 13/03/2022 11:47, Michael Walle wrote:
>>> Am 2022-03-13 10:47, schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>>>> On 13/03/2022 01:25, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>>> The MDIO controller has support to release the internal PHYs from
>>>>> reset
>>>>> by specifying a second memory resource. This is different between 
>>>>> the
>>>>> currently supported SparX-5 and the LAN966x. Add a new compatible to
>>>>> distiguish between these two.
>>
>> Typo here, BTW.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt | 2 +-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
>>>>> index 7104679cf59d..a9efff252ca6 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
>>>>> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Microsemi MII Management Controller (MIIM) / MDIO
>>>>>  =================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>  Properties:
>>>>> -- compatible: must be "mscc,ocelot-miim"
>>>>> +- compatible: must be "mscc,ocelot-miim" or "mscc,lan966x-miim"
>>>>
>>>> No wildcards, use one, specific compatible.
>>>
>>> I'm in a kind of dilemma here, have a look yourself:
>>> grep -r "lan966[28x]-" Documentation
>>>
>>> Should I deviate from the common "name" now? To make things
>>> worse, there was a similar request by Arnd [1]. But the
>>> solution feels like cheating ("lan966x" -> "lan966") ;)
>>
>> The previous 966x cases were added by one person from Microchip, so he
>> actually might know something. But do you know whether lan966x will
>> cover all current and future designs from Microchip? E.g. lan9669 (if
>> ever made) will be the same? Avoiding wildcard is the easiest, just
>> choose one implementation, e.g. "lan9662".
> 
> So if Microchip would review/ack this it would be ok? I don't really
> have a strong opinion, I just want to avoid any inconsistencies. If no
> one from Microchip will answer, I'll use microchip,lan9668-miim.

Sure.

Best regards,
Krzysztof