netdev - 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]

Date:   Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:02:28 +0200
From:   Christian Herber <christian.herber@....nxp.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
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: [PATCH] phy: nxp-c45: add driver for tja1103

On 4/13/2021 3:57 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> Ok, we can agree that there will not be a perfect naming. Would it be a
>> possibility to rename the existing TJA11xx driver to TJA1100-1-2 or is that
>> unwanted?
> 
> It is generally a bad idea. It makes back porting fixing harder if the
> file changes name.
> 
>> If nxp-c45.c is to generic (I take from your comments that' your
>> conclusion), we could at least lean towards nxp-c45-bt1.c? Unfortunately,
>> the product naming schemes are not sufficiently methodical to have a a good
>> driver name based on product names.
> 
> And what does bt1 stand for?
> 
> How about nxp-c45-tja11xx.c. It is not ideal, but it does at least
> give an indication of what devices it does cover, even if there is a
> big overlap with nxp-tja11xx.c, in terms of pattern matching. And if
> you do decide to have a major change of registers, your can call the
> device tja1201 and have a new driver nxp-c45-tja12xx.
> 
>         Andrew
> 

bt1 standing for BASE-T1.

As you can see from the current situation, it could well happen that a 
future PHY is SW incompatible (right now I would say it is unlikely, but 
ok), and the device is still a TJA11xx.

nxp-c45-tja11xx is acceptable from my point of view.