netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] net: ethernet: cpsw: introduce ti,am3352-cpsw compatible string

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: <52179E44.5030202@ti.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Aug 2013 23:09:16 +0530
From:	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
To:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
CC:	Daniel Mack <zonque@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<bcousson@...libre.com>, <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, <ujhelyi.m@...il.com>,
	<mugunthanvnm@...com>, <vaibhav.bedia@...com>, <d-gerlach@...com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] net: ethernet: cpsw: introduce ti,am3352-cpsw
 compatible string

On 8/23/2013 10:58 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Friday 23 August 2013 01:24 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
>> On 23.08.2013 19:19, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>> On Friday 23 August 2013 01:09 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2013 10:26 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>
>>>>> So just stick the IP version or call it cpsw-v1... cpsw-v2 etc.
>>>>
>>>> If this could be handled using IP version then the right way would be to
>>>> just read the IP version from hardware and use it. No need of DT property.
>>>>
>>> Thats fine as well but I thought the patch needed additional properties like
>>> CM reg-address come from DT and hence the separate compatible. If you can
>>> manage without that, thats even better.
>>
>> We can't, that's the whole point :)
>>
> I saw that from the patch :)
> 
>> Well, theoretically, we could for now, but that's not a clean solution.
>> Again: the problem here is that the control port is separated from the
>> cpsw core, and so we have to implement something specific for the AM3352
>> SoC. I know that's a violation of clean and generic driver ideas, but
>> there's no way we can assume that every cpsw v2 ip block has a control
>> port that is compatible to the one found on am335x chips.
>>
> But there is a possibility that other SOC will just use the same
> control module approach. So using a revision IP is just fine. BTW,

But this is misleading because it makes appear like the same compatible
can be used on on another SoC like DRA7 which probably has the same
version of IP but a different control module implementation, when in
practice it cannot.

The fact is we are doing something SoC specific in the driver and we
cannot hide that behind IP versions. If really in practice there comes
another SoC with the same control module definition then it can always
use ti,am3352-cpsw compatible as well. The compatible name does not
preclude its usage.

Thanks,
Sekhar
--
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