netdev - Re: Re: [PATCH] phy: nxp-c45: add driver for tja1103

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: <YHWc/afcY3OXyhAo@lunn.ch>
Date:   Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:30:37 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Christian Herber <christian.herber@....nxp.com>
Cc:     "Radu-nicolae Pirea (OSS)" <radu-nicolae.pirea@....nxp.com>,
        "hkallweit1@...il.com" <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] phy: nxp-c45: add driver for tja1103

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 08:56:30AM +0200, Christian Herber wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On 4/12/2021 6:52 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > 
> > So what you are say is, you don't care if the IP is completely
> > different, it all goes in one driver. So lets put this driver into
> > nxp-tja11xx.c. And then we avoid all the naming issues.
> > 
> >       Andrew
> > 
> 
> As this seems to be a key question, let me try and shed some more light on
> this.
> The original series of BASE-T1 PHYs includes TJA110, TJA1101, and TJA1102.
> They are covered by the existing driver, which has the unfortunate naming
> TJA11xx. Unfortunate, because the use of wildcards is a bit to generous.

Yes, that does happen.

Naming is difficult. But i really think nxp-c45.c is much worse. It
gives no idea at all what it supports. Or in the future, what it does
not support, and you actually need nxp-c45-ng.c.

Developers are going to look at a board, see a tja1XYZ chip, see the
nxp-tja11xx.c and enable it. Does the chip have a big C45 symbol on
it? Anything to give the idea it should use the nxp-c45 driver?

Maybe we should actually swing the complete opposite direction. Name
it npx-tja1103.c. There are lots of drivers which have a specific
name, but actually support a lot more devices. The developer sees they
have an tja1XYZ, there are two drivers which look about right, and
enable them both?

       Andrew