netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/3] net: enetc: remove bootloader dependency

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, 28 May 2020 10:18:19 +0200
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        Alex Marginean <alexandru.marginean@....com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Heiko Thiery <heiko.thiery@...il.com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/3] net: enetc: remove bootloader dependency

Am 2020-05-28 08:38, schrieb Michael Walle:
> These patches were picked from the following series:
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/1567779344-30965-1-git-send-email-claudiu.manoil@nxp.com/
> They have never been resent. I've picked them up, addressed Andrews
> comments, fixed some more bugs and asked Claudiu if I can keep their 
> SOB
> tags; he agreed. I've tested this on our board which happens to have a
> bootloader which doesn't do the enetc setup in all cases. Though, only
> SGMII mode was tested.
> 
> changes since v2:
>  - removed SOBs from "net: enetc: Initialize SerDes for SGMII and 
> USXGMII
>    protocols" because almost everything has changed.
>  - get a phy_device for the internal PCS PHY so we can use the phy_
>    functions instead of raw mdiobus writes

mhh after reading,
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CA+h21hoq2qkmxDFEb2QgLfrbC0PYRBHsca=0cDcGOr3txy9hsg@mail.gmail.com/
this seems to be the wrong way of doing it.

-michael