netdev - RE: [PATCH 2/2] net: phy: Associate device node with fixed 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: <AM6PR04MB3976D3E9BA05AB5D4EBB6AA6EC4D0@AM6PR04MB3976.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 14:33:56 +0000
From:   "Madalin Bucur (OSS)" <madalin.bucur@....nxp.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "Madalin Bucur (OSS)" <madalin.bucur@....nxp.com>
CC:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Vikas Singh <vikas.singh@...esoftware.com>,
        "f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "hkallweit1@...il.com" <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Calvin Johnson (OSS)" <calvin.johnson@....nxp.com>,
        kuldip dwivedi <kuldip.dwivedi@...esoftware.com>,
        Vikas Singh <vikas.singh@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] net: phy: Associate device node with fixed PHY

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> Sent: 03 August 2020 15:58
> To: Madalin Bucur (OSS) <madalin.bucur@....nxp.com>
> Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>; Vikas Singh
> <vikas.singh@...esoftware.com>; f.fainelli@...il.com; hkallweit1@...il.com;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; Calvin Johnson (OSS) <calvin.johnson@....nxp.com>;
> kuldip dwivedi <kuldip.dwivedi@...esoftware.com>; Vikas Singh
> <vikas.singh@....com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: phy: Associate device node with fixed PHY
> 
> > I see you agree that there were and there will be many changes for a
> while,
> > It's not a complaint, I know hot it works, it's just a decision based on
> > required effort vs features offered vs user requirements. Lately it's
> been
> > time consuming to try to fix things in this area.
> 
> So the conclusion to all this that you are unwilling to use the
> correct API for this, which would be phylink, and the SFP code.  So:
> 
> NACK
> 
> 	Andrew

You've rejected a generic change - ACPI support for fixed link.
The discussion above is just an example of how it could have been (mis-)used.
Are you rejecting the general case or just the particular one?

Madalin