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  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:   Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:53:24 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <>
To:     Florian Fainelli <>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <>, Andrew Lunn <>,
        Heiner Kallweit <>,
        Ioana Ciornei <>,
        Alexandru Marginean <>,
        Claudiu Manoil <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        "" <>,,
        Vladimir Oltean <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/13] Phylink PCS updates

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 02:22:08PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 7/14/2020 6:18 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:49:58AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >> Are you going to post a non-RFC version?
> > 
> > I'm waiting for the remaining patches to be reviewed; Florian reviewed
> > the first six patches (which are not the important ones in the series)
> > and that seems to be where things have stopped. There has been no
> > change, so I don't see there's much point to reposting the series.
> Sorry for giving an impression that this had stalled, I reviewed the
> obvious changes and am now reviewing the not so obvious changes, would
> certainly appreciate if other NXP folks as well as Andrew and Heiner
> looked at those changes obviously.

Thanks Florian.  Yes, it would be useful to have reviewed-bys or
acked-bys from those who are using it, and would take some of the
load off yourself, Andrew and Heiner.

It also makes sense when some of the changes to phylink are made
in response to improving things for other use cases. For example,
splitting the PCS in phylink is not something I'm doing for my own
self-interest (apart from a desire to keep phylink maintainable),
but is to support NXP's and others platforms where the PCS would
logically be a separate block of code from the MAC. So, to me it
would make sense for NXP to get involved with the review of this

If anything, splitting the PCS has meant that I've had to go back
and re-examine Marvell NETA and PP2 (in fact, several times) to
adapt them to solidly test this approach and make sure I haven't
missed anything - these two drivers are my main test-bed for
phylink at the moment, they're also hardware where the PCS is
completely indistinguishable from the MAC at register level, so
you can't say "this group of registers are definitely PCS only

RMK's Patch system:
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists