linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 02/13] dpll: Allow registering pin with firmware node

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: <tawd6udewifjeoymxkfkapxgcgfviixb4zgcjnplycigk5ffws@rdymwt2hknsl>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 14:08:31 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, 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>, 
	Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>, Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>, 
	Grzegorz Nitka <grzegorz.nitka@...el.com>, Petr Oros <poros@...hat.com>, 
	Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>, Prathosh Satish <Prathosh.Satish@...rochip.com>, 
	Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, 
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, 
	Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>, 
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>, 
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>, 
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 02/13] dpll: Allow registering pin with
 firmware node

Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 08:35:01PM +0100, ivecera@...hat.com wrote:
>
>
>On December 12, 2025 12:25:12 PM GMT+01:00, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>>Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 08:47:45PM +0100, ivecera@...hat.com wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>>@@ -559,7 +563,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dpll_netdev_pin_clear);
>>>  */
>>> struct dpll_pin *
>>> dpll_pin_get(u64 clock_id, u32 pin_idx, struct module *module,
>>>-	     const struct dpll_pin_properties *prop)
>>>+	     const struct dpll_pin_properties *prop,
>>>+	     struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
>>> {
>>> 	struct dpll_pin *pos, *ret = NULL;
>>> 	unsigned long i;
>>>@@ -568,14 +573,15 @@ dpll_pin_get(u64 clock_id, u32 pin_idx, struct module *module,
>>> 	xa_for_each(&dpll_pin_xa, i, pos) {
>>> 		if (pos->clock_id == clock_id &&
>>> 		    pos->pin_idx == pin_idx &&
>>>-		    pos->module == module) {
>>>+		    pos->module == module &&
>>>+		    pos->fwnode == fwnode) {
>>
>>Is fwnode part of the key? Doesn't look to me like that. Then you can
>>have a simple helper to set fwnode on struct dpll_pin *, and leave
>>dpll_pin_get() out of this, no?
>
>IMHO yes, because particular fwnode identifies exact dpll pin, so
>I think it should be a part of the key.

The key items serve for userspace identification purposes as well. For
that, fwnode is non-sense.
fwnode identifies exact pin, that is nice. But is it the only
differentiator among other key items? I don't expect so.

>