netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v7 1/6] Documentation: ACPI: DSD: Document MDIO PHY

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:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 19:32:48 +0200
From:   Jon Nettleton <jon@...id-run.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
        Calvin Johnson <calvin.johnson@....nxp.com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Cristi Sovaiala <cristian.sovaiala@....com>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@....nxp.com>,
        "<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux.cj@...il.com,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v7 1/6] Documentation: ACPI: DSD: Document MDIO PHY

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 9:14 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>
> > Hence my previous comment that we should consider this an escape
> > hatch rather than the last word in how to describe networking on
> > ACPI/SBSA platforms.
>
> One problem i have is that this patch set suggests ACPI can be used to
> describe complex network hardware. It is opening the door for others
> to follow and add more ACPI support in networking. How long before it
> is not considered an escape hatch, but the front door?
>
> For an example, see
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/1595417547-18957-3-git-send-email-vikas.singh@puresoftware.com/
>
> It is hard to see what the big picture is here. The [0/2] patch is not
> particularly good. But it makes it clear that people are wanting to
> add fixed-link PHYs into ACPI. These are pseudo devices, used to make
> the MAC think it is connected to a PHY when it is not. The MAC still
> gets informed of link speed, etc via the standard PHYLIB API. They are
> mostly used for when the Ethernet MAC is directly connected to an
> Ethernet Switch, at a MAC to MAC level.
>
> Now i could be wrong, but are Ethernet switches something you expect
> to see on ACPI/SBSA platforms? Or is this a legitimate use of the
> escape hatch?

I think with the rise in adoption of Smart-NICs in datacenters there
will definitely be a lot more crossover between ACPI/SBSA and network
appliance oriented hardware.

-Jon