netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] dt-binding: net: sfp binding documentation

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: <CAL_JsqJNeibfFVKVjdTJJ88WKonSYnXMdT5mu7V46AGPRbAKbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Aug 2017 14:12:42 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
To:     Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>
Cc:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dt-binding: net: sfp binding documentation

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il> wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 01:53:17PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 01:28:06PM +0300, Baruch Siach wrote:
>> > Add device-tree binding documentation SFP transceivers. Support for SFP
>> > transceivers has been recently introduced (drivers/net/phy/sfp.c).
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>
>> > ---
>> >
>> > The SFP driver is on net-next.
>> >
>> > Not sure about the rate-select-gpio property name. The SFP+ standard
>> > (not supported yet) uses two signals, RS0 and RS1. RS0 is compatible
>> > with the SFP rate select signal, while RS1 controls the Tx rate.
>>
>> SFP+ is usable with this, but the platforms I have do not wire the
>> rate select pins on the SFP+ sockets to GPIOs, but hard-wire them.
>
> So maybe naming this signal 'rate-select0-gpio' would make it more future
> (SPF+) proof? Or 'rate-select-rx-gpio'?

Just extend it by making it an array of 2 gpios.

Rob