linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: lan966x: remove PHY reset support

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]

Message-ID: <YmveBgHG9KCwvySO@lunn.ch>
Date:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:45:58 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: lan966x: remove PHY reset support

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 01:40:47PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> Remove the unneeded PHY reset node as well as the driver support for it.
> 
> This was already discussed [1] and I expect Microchip to Ack on this
> removal. Since there is no user, no breakage is expected.
> 
> I'm not sure it this should go through net or net-next and if the patches
> should have a Fixes: tag or not. In upstream linux there was never any user
> of it, so there is no bug to be fixed. But OTOH if the schema fix isn't
> backported, then there might be an older schema version still containing
> the reset node. Thoughts?

Is the switch driver usable in the last LTS kernel? Somebody could
build a product around 5.15, and i assume they will have issues?

That could be an argument for backporting.

      Andrew