linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] checkpatch: check for comment explaining rgmii(|-rxid|-txid) PHY modes

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: <f593ed6162e34aa354eff6cc286cb24294195ee1.camel@ew.tq-group.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:11:20 +0200
From: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@...tq-group.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>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Dwaipayan Ray
 <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>, Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, Joe
 Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Nishanth Menon
 <nm@...com>,  Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, Siddharth Vadapalli
 <s-vadapalli@...com>, Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>, Tero Kristo
 <kristo@...nel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org,  linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux@...tq-group.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] checkpatch: check for comment
 explaining rgmii(|-rxid|-txid) PHY modes

On Thu, 2025-06-26 at 10:02 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 12:53:34PM +0200, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
> > Historically, the RGMII PHY modes specified in Device Trees have been
> > used inconsistently, often referring to the usage of delays on the PHY
> > side rather than describing the board; many drivers still implement this
> > incorrectly.
> > 
> > Require a comment in Devices Trees using these modes (usually mentioning
> > that the delay is realized on the PCB), so we can avoid adding more
> > incorrect uses (or will at least notice which drivers still need to be
> > fixed).
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> > Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@...tq-group.com>
> 
> One question, how should this be merged? The two DT patches might want
> to go via the TI DT Maintainer. And this patch via the checkpatch
> Maintainer? Or do you plan to merge it some other way?

The first two patches should go via net-next I think (the first is DT bindings
only, the second one modifies the AM65-CPSW driver), although I would prefer to
get a review/ack from a TI maintainer, too.

I don't know what tree checkpatch usually goes through, MAINTAINERS doesn't list
a specific repo. The whole series could be merged via net-next if that's fine
with the checkpatch maintainers.

Best,
Matthias

> 
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> 
>     Andrew

-- 
TQ-Systems GmbH | Mühlstraße 2, Gut Delling | 82229 Seefeld, Germany
Amtsgericht München, HRB 105018
Geschäftsführer: Detlef Schneider, Rüdiger Stahl, Stefan Schneider
https://www.tq-group.com/