netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: Add 405EX support to new EMAC driver

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]

Date:	Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:11:34 +0100
From:	Stefan Roese <sr@...x.de>
To:	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Cc:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, jwboyer@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Add 405EX support to new EMAC driver

On Monday 05 November 2007, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > So how exactly do you want me to handle this (I'm still new to this
> > device
> > tree stuff, so please bear with me)? Like this?
> >
> >                         RGMII0: emac-rgmii@...01000 {
> >                                 device_type = "rgmii-interface";
> >                                 compatible = "ibm,rgmii-405ex",
> > "ibm,rgmii";
> >                                 reg = <ef601000 8>;
> >                                 has-mdio;
> >                         };
>
> The above.
>
> Properties without values are typically used for such "flags". I'll
> fixup the driver to also take that for the inverted STACR and will post
> a patch fixing that up asap.

OK, thanks. I'll wait with further 405ex emac patches until you changed this 
in the driver.

> > So perhaps most flexible would be to add individual properties,
> > like "stacr-oc-inverted" and "stacr-staopc-19-20". What do you think?
> > And
> > again the additional question: Should the be added as an new property
> > or
> > added to the compatible property?
>
> That's always the main question imho ... When it gets nasty like that I
> tend to think the compatible property is a good compromise. It's mostly
> a matter of taste. Unless you can come up with some more pleasant way to
> do it... maybe a stacr-type property with multiple values but it's
> really not worth complicating things when a compatible property will do
> the job just fine. In that case, it's not really a "feature" of a given
> implementation, but more about subtle differences between
> implementations.

OK.

Best regards,
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html