netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 0/4] mv88e6xxx: setting 2500base-x mode for CPU/DSA port in dts

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: <20190817155025.GB9013@t480s.localdomain>
Date:   Sat, 17 Aug 2019 15:50:25 -0400
From:   Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
To:     Marek Behún <marek.behun@....cz>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        Marek Behún <marek.behun@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 0/4] mv88e6xxx: setting 2500base-x mode
 for CPU/DSA port in dts

Hi Marek,

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 21:14:48 +0200, Marek Behún <marek.behun@....cz> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> here is another proposal for supporting setting 2500base-x mode for
> CPU/DSA ports in device tree correctly.
> 
> The changes from v1 are that instead of adding .port_setup() and
> .port_teardown() methods to the DSA operations struct we instead, for
> CPU/DSA ports, call dsa_port_enable() from dsa_port_setup(), but only
> after the port is registered (and required phylink/devlink structures
> exist).
> 
> The .port_enable/.port_disable methods are now only meant to be used
> for user ports, when the slave interface is brought up/down. This
> proposal changes that in such a way that these methods are also called
> for CPU/DSA ports, but only just after the switch is set up (and just
> before the switch is tore down).
> 
> If we went this way, we would have to patch the other DSA drivers to
> check if user port is being given in their respective .port_enable
> and .port_disable implmentations.
> 
> What do you think about this?

This looks much better. Let me pass through all patches of this RFC so that
I can include bits I would like to see in your next series.


Thanks,

	Vivien