linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: usb: lan78xx: add weak dependency with micrel phy module

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: <d3d97260-f840-4ea8-b964-64e36448bf96@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 11:53:54 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>,
 Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
 Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez <jtornosm@...hat.com>,
 UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, mcgrof@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 woojung.huh@...rochip.com, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
 linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: usb: lan78xx: add weak dependency with micrel phy
 module

On 7/25/24 08:50, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> if you are saying that the build system should automatically convert
> this:
> 
> 	config USB_LAN78XX
> 		tristate "Microchip LAN78XX Based USB Ethernet Adapters"
> 		select MII
> 		select PHYLIB
> 		select MICROCHIP_PHY
> 		select FIXED_PHY
> 		select CRC32
> 
> into (for my config):
> 
> 	MODULE_WEAKDEP("mii");
> 	MODULE_WEAKDEP("microchip");
> 
> then humn... why is CONFIG_MICREL (being added in this patch) not there?
> It seems even if we automatically derive that information it wouldn't
> fix the problem Jose is trying to solve.

I hoped that the 'weak dependency' towards mii and microchip could be 
inferred greping for 'request_module()' in the relevant code, but 
apparently it's not the case.

The MODULE_WEAKDEP() construct usage makes sense to me, but this patch 
will need at least for MODULE_WEAKDEP() to land into net-next, and to 
grasp more consensus in the phy land.

Cheers,

Paolo