linux-kernel - Re: [net-next PATCH v4 06/11] net: phy: Export some functions

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: <de428c7e-2048-4498-8c2e-ed8c3b80f3b1@linux.dev>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 14:14:58 -0400
From: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, upstream@...oha.com,
 Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
 Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 06/11] net: phy: Export some functions

On 5/15/25 04:12, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 07:57:16PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 May 2025 12:10:08 -0400 Sean Anderson wrote:
>> > Export a few functions so they can be used outside the phy subsystem:
>> > 
>> > get_phy_c22_id is useful when probing MDIO devices which present a
>> > phy-like interface despite not using the Linux ethernet phy subsystem.
>> > 
>> > mdio_device_bus_match is useful when creating MDIO devices manually
>> > (e.g. on non-devicetree platforms).
>> > 
>> > At the moment the only (future) user of these functions selects PHYLIB,
>> > so we do not need fallbacks for when CONFIG_PHYLIB=n.
>> 
>> This one does not apply cleanly.
> 
> In any case, we *still* have two competing implementations for PCS
> support, and the authors have been asked to work together, but there's
> been no sign of that with both authors posting their patch sets within
> the last week.

I have commented on the other series with my feedback. You are welcome to
read it and decide if you agree or not.

> Plus, I had asked for the patches to be posted as RFC because I'm not
> going to have time to review them for a while (you may have noticed a
> lack of patches from myself - because I don't have time to post them
> as I'm working on stuff directed by my employer.)

I consider my series ready for mainline. I will not mark it RFC because
it's not an RFC.

> Sadly, being employed means there will be times that I don't have the
> bandwidth to look at mainline stuff.

Then perhaps some of the other netdev maintainers/reviewers could have
a look.

--Sean