linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 5/9] phy: add phy_get_rx_polarity() and phy_get_tx

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: <20251125170257.pk4cish65mcoeqhn@skbuf>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 19:02:57 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
	Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
	Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 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>,
	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
	Eric Woudstra <ericwouds@...il.com>,
	Marek Beh√∫n <kabel@...nel.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
	Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@...s.st.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/9] phy: add phy_get_rx_polarity() and
 phy_get_tx_polarity()

On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 08:01:21PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > The proposed maintainership model is joint custody between netdev and
> > linux-phy, because of the fact that these properties can be applied to
> > Ethernet PCS blocks just as well as Generic PHY devices. I've added as
> > maintainers those from "ETHERNET PHY LIBRARY", "NETWORKING DRIVERS" and
> > "GENERIC PHY FRAMEWORK".
> 
> I dunno.. ain't no such thing as "joint custody" maintainership.
> We have to pick one tree. Given the set of Ms here, I suspect 
> the best course of action may be to bubble this up to its own tree.
> Ask Konstantin for a tree in k.org, then you can "co-post" the patches
> for review + PR link in the cover letter (e.g. how Tony from Intel
> submits their patches). This way not networking and PHY can pull
> the shared changes with stable commit IDs.

I can see how this makes some sense. If nobody has any objection, I'll
follow up to this by emailing Konstantin about a git tree for shared
infrastructure between generic PHY and networking.

> We can do out-of-sequence netdev call tomorrow if folks want to talk
> this thru (8:30am Pacific)

Not sure it's that big of a discussion topic.

> > +GENERIC PHY COMMON PROPERTIES
> > +M:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> > +M:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
> > +M:	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > +M:	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
> > +M:	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> > +M:	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>
> > +M:	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
> > +R:	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
> > +M:	Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
> 
> checkpatch nit: apparently it wants all Ms first, then all Rs.

Thanks for pointing this out.

This will probably have to be changed quite a bit in v2 if the "separate
git tree" idea is going to be implemented. I'll probably start with an
empty list and request volunteers to step up.