netdev - Re: [PATCH] net/smsc911x: add device tree probe support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110729154723.GC11164@ponder.secretlab.ca>
Date:	Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:47:23 -0600
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>
Cc:	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>, patches@...aro.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@...c.com>,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/smsc911x: add device tree probe support

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:36:26AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:28:05PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 09:16:40PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 03:37:23PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 05:44:00PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > > > > > It adds device tree probe support for smsc911x driver.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
> > > > > > > Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
> > > > > > > Cc: Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@...c.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/smsc.txt |   34 +++++++
> > > > > > >  drivers/net/smsc911x.c                         |  123 +++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > > > >  2 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/smsc.txt
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/smsc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/smsc.txt
> > > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > > index 0000000..1920695
> > > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/smsc.txt
> > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
> > > > > > > +* Smart Mixed-Signal Connectivity (SMSC) LAN Controller
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +Required properties:
> > > > > > > +- compatible : Should be "smsc,lan<model>""smsc,lan"
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Drop "smsc,lan".  That's far too generic.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > The following devices are supported by the driver.
> > > > > 
> > > > > LAN9115, LAN9116, LAN9117, LAN9118
> > > > > LAN9215, LAN9216, LAN9217, LAN9218
> > > > > LAN9210, LAN9211
> > > > > LAN9220, LAN9221
> > > > > 
> > > > > If we only keep specific <model> as the compatible, we will have a
> > > > > long match table which is actually used nowhere to distinguish the
> > > > > device.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So we need some level generic compatible to save the meaningless
> > > > > long match table.  What about: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > static const struct of_device_id smsc_dt_ids[] = {
> > > > >         { .compatible = "smsc,lan9", },
> > > > >         { /* sentinel */ }
> > > > > };
> > > > > 
> > > > > Or:
> > > > > 
> > > > > static const struct of_device_id smsc_dt_ids[] = {
> > > > >         { .compatible = "smsc,lan91", },
> > > > >         { .compatible = "smsc,lan92", },
> > > > >         { /* sentinel */ }
> > > > > };
> > > > 
> > > > None of this unambiguously distinguish the devices supported by this 
> > > > driver and the smc91x driver which supports LAN91C92, LAN91C94, 
> > > > LAN91C95, LAN91C96, LAN91C100, LAN91C110.
> > > > 
> > > So you suggest to make a long list to explicitly tell the device type
> > > that the driver supports?
> > 
> > I'm not suggesting anything.  :-)  I'm merely pointing out that the 
> > above .compatible = "smsc,lan9" or .compatible = "smsc,lan91" are too 
> > generic given that there is another driver with different devices to 
> > which they could also apply.
> > 
> Since I do not get any suggestion here, I'm going to follow the driver
> name to use '911' as the model number.  Please tell me if there is any
> better one.

What is the manufacturer part name?  lan9111 or lan91c11?  The
manufacturer's documented part number is almost always preferred.

g.

--
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