linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: support RGMII cmode

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: <20220825164206.200f564e@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2022 16:42:06 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Marcus Carlberg <marcus.carlberg@...s.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, <kernel@...s.com>,
        Pavana Sharma <pavana.sharma@...i.com>,
        Ashkan Boldaji <ashkan.boldaji@...i.com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: support RGMII cmode

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 01:26:59 +0200 Marek Behún wrote:
> > Could you explain why? Is there an upstream-supported platform
> > already in Linus's tree which doesn't boot or something?  
> 
> If you mean whether there is a device-tree of such a device, they I
> don't think so, because AFAIK there isn't a device-tree with 6393 in
> upstream Linux other than CN9130-CRB.
> 
> But it is possible though that there is such a device which has
> everything but the switch supported on older kernels, due to this RGMII
> bug.
> 
> I think RGMII should have been supported on this switch when I send the
> patch adding support for it, and it is a bug that it is not, becuase
> RGMII is supported for similar switches driven by mv88e6xxx driver
> (6390, for example). I don't know why I overlooked it then.
> 
> Note that I wouldn't consider adding support for USXGMII a fix, because
> although the switch can do it, it was never done with this driver.
> 
> But if you think it doesn't apply anyway, remove the Fixes tag. This is
> just my opinion that it should stay.

I see, I can only go by our general guidance of not treating omissions 
as fixes, but I lack the knowledge to be certain what's right here.
Anyone willing to cast a tie-break vote? Andrew? net or net-next?