netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] net: mvneta: introduce compatible string "marvell, armada-xp-neta"

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]

Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:13:23 +0200
From:	Simon Guinot <simon.guinot@...uanux.org>
To:	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
Cc:	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...il.com>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] net: mvneta: introduce compatible string
 "marvell, armada-xp-neta"

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 02:32:53PM +0200, Simon Guinot wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 05:01:12PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > Hi Gregory,
> > 
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 05:15:28PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> > > On 17/06/2015 17:12, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> > > > On 17/06/2015 15:19, Simon Guinot wrote:
> > > >> The mvneta driver supports the Ethernet IP found in the Armada 370, XP,
> > > >> 380 and 385 SoCs. Since at least one more hardware feature is available
> > > >> for the Armada XP SoCs then a way to identify them is needed.
> > > >>
> > > >> This patch introduces a new compatible string "marvell,armada-xp-neta".
> > > > 
> > > > Let's be future proof by going further. I would like to have an compatible string
> > > > for each SoC even if we currently we don't use them.
> > 
> > I disagree with this.  We can't predict what incosistencies we'll discover in
> > the future.  We should only assign new compatible strings based on known IP
> > variations when we discover them.  This seems fraught with demons since we
> > can't predict the scope of affected IP blocks (some steppings of one SoC, three
> > SoCs plus two steppings of a fourth, etc)
> > 
> > imho, the 'future-proofing' lies in being specific as to the naming of the
> > compatible strings against known hardware variations at the time.
> 
> So, should I add more compatible strings or not ?

Hi Gregory and Jason,

How do you want me to handle this ? Did you reach an agreement ?

Thanks,

Simon

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)