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:   Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:34:37 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
        Calvin Johnson <calvin.johnson@....nxp.com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Jon <jon@...id-run.com>,
        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, linux.cj@...il.com,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        Vikas Singh <vikas.singh@...esoftware.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v7 1/6] Documentation: ACPI: DSD: Document MDIO
 PHY

Hi Everybody

So i think it is time to try to bring this discussion to some sort of
conclusion.

No ACPI maintainer is willing to ACK any of these patches. Nor are
they willing to NACK them. ACPI maintainers simply don't want to get
involved in making use of ACPI in networking.

I personally don't have the knowledge to do ACPI correctly, review
patches, point people in the right direction. I suspect the same can
be said for the other PHY maintainers.

Having said that, there is clearly a wish from vendors to make use of
ACPI in the networking subsystem to describe hardware.

How do we go forward?

For the moment, we will need to NACK all patches adding ACPI support
to the PHY subsystem.

Vendors who really do want to use ACPI, not device tree, probably
need to get involved in standardisation. Vendors need to submit a
proposal to UEFI and get it accepted.

Developers should try to engage with the ACPI maintainers and see
if they can get them involved in networking. Patches with an
Acked-by from an ACPI maintainer will be accepted, assuming they
fulfil all the other usual requirements. But please don't submit
patches until you do have an ACPI maintainer on board. We don't
want to spamming the lists with NACKs all the time.

     Andrew