linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] net: stmmac: allow drivers to explicitly select PHY device

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: <CAGb2v66PEA4OJxs2rHrYFAxx8bw4zab7TUXQr+DM-+ERBO-UyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 22:11:50 +0800
From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@...il.com>, 
	"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, 
	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>, 
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, 
	Furong Xu <0x1207@...il.com>, Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>, 
	linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] net: stmmac: allow drivers to explicitly select
 PHY device

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 9:25 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 05:57:38AM -0600, James Hilliard wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 1:53 AM Russell King (Oracle)
> > <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 02:37:03PM -0600, James Hilliard wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 2:30 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sure, that may make sense to do as well, but I still don't see
> > > > > > how that impacts the need to runtime select the PHY which
> > > > > > is configured for the correct MFD.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you know what variant you have, you only include the one PHY you
> > > > > actually have, and phy-handle points to it, just as normal. No runtime
> > > > > selection.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, so here's the issue, we have both PHY variants, older hardware
> > > > generally has AC200 PHY's while newer ships AC300 PHY's, but
> > > > when I surveyed our deployed hardware using these boards many
> > > > systems of similar age would randomly mix AC200 and AC300 PHY's.
> > > >
> > > > It appears there was a fairly long transition period where both variants
> > > > were being shipped.
> > >
> > > Given that DT is supposed to describe the hardware that is being run on,
> > > it should _describe_ _the_ _hardware_ that the kernel is being run on.
> > >
> > > That means not enumerating all possibilities in DT and then having magic
> > > in the kernel to select the right variant. That means having a correct
> > > description in DT for the kernel to use.
> >
> > The approach I'm using is IMO quite similar to say other hardware
> > variant runtime detection DT features like this:
> > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/157ce8f381efe264933e9366db828d845bade3a1
>
> That is for things link a HAT on a RPi. It is something which is easy
> to replace, and is expected to be replaced.

Actually it's for second sourced components that are modules _within_
the device (a tablet or a laptop) that get swapped in at the factory.
Definitely not something easy to replace and not expected to be replaced
by the end user.

The other thing is that there are no distinguishing identifiers for a
device tree match for the swap-in variants at the board / device level.
Though I do have something that does DT fixups in the kernel for IDs
passed over by the firmware. There are other reasons for this arrangement,
one being that the firmware is not easily upgradable.

ChenYu

> You are talking about some form of chiplet like component within the
> SoC package. It is not easy to replace, and not expected to be
> replaced.
>
> Different uses cases altogether.
>
> What i think we will end up with is the base SoC .dtsi file, and two
> additional .dtsi files describing the two PHY variants.
>
>         Andrew
>