netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/3] Restructure drivers/net/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]

Message-ID: <20200731012510.GD1712415@lunn.ch>
Date:   Fri, 31 Jul 2020 03:25:10 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/3] Restructure drivers/net/phy

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 05:34:44PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/28/2020 5:28 PM, Doug Berger wrote:
> > On 7/28/2020 9:28 AM, Ioana Ciornei wrote:
> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/3] Restructure drivers/net/phy
> >>>
> >>>> I think that the MAINTAINERS file should also be updated to mention
> >>>> the new path to the drivers. Just did a quick grep after 'drivers/net/phy':
> >>>> F:      drivers/net/phy/adin.c
> >>>> F:      drivers/net/phy/mdio-xgene.c
> >>>> F:      drivers/net/phy/
> >>>> F:      drivers/net/phy/marvell10g.c
> >>>> F:      drivers/net/phy/mdio-mvusb.c
> >>>> F:      drivers/net/phy/dp83640*
> >>>> F:      drivers/net/phy/phylink.c
> >>>> F:      drivers/net/phy/sfp*
> >>>> F:      drivers/net/phy/mdio-xpcs.c
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ioana
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, I will take care of that.
> >>>
> >>>> Other than that, the new 'drivers/net/phy/phy/' path is somewhat
> >>>> repetitive but unfortunately I do not have another better suggestion.
> >>>
> >>> Me neither.
> >>>
> >>> I wonder if we are looking at the wrong part of the patch.
> >>> drivers/net/X/phy/
> >>> drivers/net/X/mdio/
> >>> drivers/net/X/pcs/
> >>>
> >>> Question is, what would X be?
> >>>
> >>>    Andrew
> >>
> >> It may not be a popular suggestion but can't we take the drivers/net/phy,
> >> drivers/net/pcs and drivers/net/mdio route?
> 
> +1

O.K. Then let me see what happens to the core code. How easy it is to
split up, or if it all need to be together, probably still in phy.

      Andrew