linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] net: stmmac: dwmac-qcom-ethqos: Mask PHY mode if configured with rgmii-id

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: <23a9f6cf-3921-48c1-9c28-aeede639cf40@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 18:04:38 +0800
From: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@...cinc.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: 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>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin
	<mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio
	<konradybcio@...nel.org>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] net: stmmac: dwmac-qcom-ethqos: Mask PHY mode if
 configured with rgmii-id



On 2025-01-22 01:10, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> To address the ABI compatibility issue between the kernel and DTS caused by
>> this change, handle the compatible string 'qcom,qcs404-evb-4000' in the
>> code, as it is the only legacy board that mistakenly uses the 'rgmii'
>> phy-mode.
> 
> Are you saying every other board DT got this correct? How do you know
> that? Was this SoC never shipped to anybody, so the only possible
> board is the QCOM RDK which never left the lab?
> 
> I doubt this is true, so you are probably breaking out of tree
> boards. We care less about out of tree boards, but we also don't
> needlessly break them.

You're right. My conclusion was based solely on browsing all RGMII-type 
Qualcomm boards under the source tree, and I didn't take the scenario 
you mentioned into account. I will work on coming up with a new 
solution. If you have any suggestions, I will gladly take them as a 
reference.

> 
> 	Andrew

-- 
Best Regards,
Yijie