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  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, 7 Sep 2020 08:15:33 +0200
From:   Helmut Grohne <helmut.grohne@...enta.de>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: dsa: microchip: look for phy-mode in port nodes

Hi Andrew,

On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 03:52:55PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > +			dev_warn(dev->dev,
> > +				 "Using legacy switch \"phy-mode\" missing on port %d node. Please update your device tree.\n",

This is inside ksz8795_port_setup.

> That message seems mangled.

I'm not sure that I understand what you are objecting to here.

> > +			if (!p->interface) {
> > +				if (dev->compat_interface) {
> > +					dev_warn(dev->dev,
> > +						 "Using legacy switch \"phy-mode\" missing on port %d node. Please update your device tree.\n",
> > +						 i);

This is inside ksz9477_config_cpu_port.

> Same warning again.

I guess that you believe the warning should only be issued in one place.
The locations affect different chips driven by the same driver. I
considered moving them to a common function, but figured that it was not
worth tearing the code apart. In case a third chip would be supported by
the driver, it would not need the compatibility code. It would start out
using only the correct phy-mode property.

Does that address your concern?

Helmut

Powered by blists - more mailing lists