linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: net: dsa: document internal MDIO bus

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: <6cec079e-991e-4222-a76d-d6156de0daca@arinc9.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2023 08:52:37 +0300
From:   Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "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>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Alvin Šipraga <alsi@...g-olufsen.dk>,
        Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
        Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
        DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, mithat.guner@...ont.com,
        erkin.bozoglu@...ont.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: net: dsa: document internal MDIO bus

On 12.09.2023 22:34, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 10:23:51PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>> The phylink bindings for user ports I ended up making by looking up the
>> existing devicetrees are different than the phylink bindings for the shared
>> (CPU and DSA) ports currently enforced on all switches.
>>
>> My phylink bindings for user ports:
>>
>>              allOf:
>>                - anyOf:
>>                    - required: [ fixed-link ]
>>                    - required: [ phy-handle ]
>>                    - required: [ managed ]
>>
>>                - if:
>>                    required: [ fixed-link ]
>>                  then:
>>                    not:
>>                      required: [ managed ]
> 
> Right, it should have been anyOf and not oneOf.. my mistake. It is a bug
> which should be fixed. It's the same phylink that gets used in both cases,
> user ports and shared ports :)

One more thing, I don't recall phy-mode being required to be defined for
user ports as it will default to GMII. I don't believe this is the same
case for shared ports so phy-mode is required only for them?

> 
>>
>> The phylink bindings for shared ports enforced on all switches on
>> dsa-port.yaml:
>>
>>    allOf:
>>      - required:
>>          - phy-mode
>>      - oneOf:
>>          - required:
>>              - fixed-link
>>          - required:
>>              - phy-handle
>>          - required:
>>              - managed
>>
>> Here's what I understand:
>>
>> - For switches in dsa_switches_apply_workarounds[]
>>    - Enforce the latter for shared ports.
>>    - Enforce the former for user ports.
>>
>> - For switches not in dsa_switches_apply_workarounds[]
>>    - Enforce the former for all ports.
> 
> No, no. We enforce the dt-schema regardless of switch presence in
> dsa_switches_apply_workarounds[], to encourage users to fix device trees
> (those who run schema validation). The kernel workaround consists in
> doing something (skipping phylink) for the device trees where the schema
> warns on shared ports. But there should be a single sub-schema for
> validating phylink bindings, whatever port kind it is.

Hmm, like writing phylink.yaml and then referring to it under the port
pattern node? This could prevent a lot of repetition.

Arınç