linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: net: qcom,ethqos: Drop fallback compatible for qcom,qcs615-ethqos

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b1e6e480-750c-4abd-9e13-6138c5e18284@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 08:14:06 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@...cinc.com>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org>,
 Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
 Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
 Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
 Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: net: qcom,ethqos: Drop fallback
 compatible for qcom,qcs615-ethqos

On 25/12/2024 09:58, Yijie Yang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2024-12-24 17:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 24/12/2024 04:07, Yijie Yang wrote:
>>> The core version of EMAC on qcs615 has minor differences compared to that
>>> on sm8150. During the bring-up routine, the loopback bit needs to be set,
>>> and the Power-On Reset (POR) status of the registers isn't entirely
>>> consistent with sm8150 either.
>>> Therefore, it should be treated as a separate entity rather than a
>>> fallback option.
>>
>> ... and explanation of ABI impact? You were asked about this last time,
>> so this is supposed to end up here.
> 
> I actually replied to this query last time, but maybe it wasn't clear. 
> Firstly, no one is using Ethernet on this platform yet. Secondly, the 
> previous fallback to sm8150 is incorrect and causes packet loss. 
> Instead, it should fall back to qcs404.
> 
And if you send v3 with same commit msg, I will ask the same. Your
commit msg must answer to this.

Best regards,
Krzysztof