netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/5] net: phylink: pcs: add 802.3 clause 22 helpers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 11 Mar 2020 21:59:18 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/5] net: phylink: pcs: add 802.3 clause 22 helpers

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 21:32, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
<linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
>

>
> So, why abuse some other subsystem's datastructure for something that
> is entirely separate, potentially making the maintanence of that
> subsystem more difficult for the maintainers?  I don't get why one
> would think this is an acceptable approach.
>
> What you've said is that you want to use struct phy_device, but you
> don't want to publish it into the device model, you don't want to
> use mdio accesses, you don't want to use phylib helpers.  So, what's
> the point of using struct phy_device?  I don't see _any_ reason to
> do that and make things unnecessarily more difficult for the phylib
> maintainers.
>

So if it's such a big mistake...

> > > Sorry, but you need to explain better what you would like to see here.
> > > The additions I'm adding are to the SGMII specification; I find your
> > > existing definitions to be obscure because they conflate two different
> > > bit fields together to produce something for the ethtool linkmodes
> > > (which I think is a big mistake.)
> >
> > I'm saying that there were already LPA_SGMII definitions in there.
> > There are 2 "generic" solutions proposed now and yet they cannot agree
> > on config_reg definitions. Omitting the fact that you did have a
> > chance to point out that big mistake before it got merged, I'm
> > wondering why you didn't remove them and add your new ones instead.
> > The code rework is minimal. Is it because the definitions are in UAPI?
> > If so, isn't it an even bigger mistake to put more stuff in UAPI? Why
> > would user space care about the SGMII config_reg? There's no user even
> > of the previous SGMII definitions as far as I can tell.
>
> I don't see it as a big deal - certainly not the kind of fuss you're
> making over it.
>

...why keep it?
I'm all for creating a common interface for configuring this. It just
makes me wonder how common it is going to be, if there's already a
driver in-tree, from the same PCS hardware vendor, which after the
patchset you're proposing is still going to use a different
infrastructure.

> --
> RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 10.2Mbps down 587kbps up

Thanks,
-Vladimir