[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7c456101-6643-44d1-812a-2eae3bce9068@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:31:42 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
Cc: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
davem@...emloft.net, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Romain Gantois <romain.gantois@...tlin.com>,
Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>,
Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: phy: sfp: Add single-byte SMBus SFP
access
> What do you think will be the effect of such a warning? Who is the
> target audience?
It will act as a disclaimer. The kernel is doing its best with broken
hardware, but don't blame the kernel when it does not work
correctly....
> You can obviously add it, and I don't really care. But I believe the
> result will be an endless stream of end users worrying about this scary
> warning and wanting to know what they can do about it. What will be
> your answer?
I agree that the wording needs to be though about. Maybe something
like:
This hardware is broken by design, and there is nothing the kernel, or
the community can do about it. The kernel will try its best, but some
standard SFP features are disabled, and the features which are
implemented may not work correctly because of the design errors. Use
with caution, and don't blame the kernel when it all goes horribly
wrong.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists