netdev - Re: DSA incompatible with TI CPSW device model in dual mac mode

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: <d6f8fd07-6131-1e2b-09a6-97ab8406496d@orlandi.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:57:32 +0100
From:   Daniele Orlandi <daniele@...andi.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: DSA incompatible with TI CPSW device model in dual mac mode

On 20/01/19 18:30, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 
> Looking at Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/cpsw.txt, your DSA
> Ethernet phandle should point to cpsw_emac1: slave@1.

Hi Andrew,

Yes, that's what sounds logical, however that node does not become the 
parent device net class nodes:

root@...0:/sys/class/net# ls -l
[...]
lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root             0 Jan  1  1970 eth0 -> 
../../devices/platform/ocp/4a100000.ethernet/net/eth0
lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root             0 Jan  1  1970 eth1 -> 
../../devices/platform/ocp/4a100000.ethernet/net/eth1
[...]

root@...0:/sys/class/net# cd eth0
root@...0:/sys/devices/platform/ocp/4a100000.ethernet/net/eth0# ls -l
[...]
lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root             0 Jan  1  1970 device -> 
../../../4a100000.ethernet
[...]

root@...0:/sys/class/net# cd eth1
root@...0:/sys/devices/platform/ocp/4a100000.ethernet/net/eth1# ls -l
[...]
lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root             0 Jan  1  1970 device -> 
../../../4a100000.ethernet
[...]

 > I don't know if this actually works, but i _think_ some people have 
used DSA with this
> device.

IMHO it should be the CPSW driver that should istantiate two separate 
devices, one for each cpsw_emacX node in the device tree.

Do you think they could be receptive to such proposal?

Thanks,
Bye,

-- 
   Daniele Orlandi