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:   Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:05:29 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <>
To:     Andrew Lunn <>
Cc:     Prasanna Vengateshan <>,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 05/10] net: dsa: microchip: add DSA support
 for microchip lan937x

On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 04:43:12PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> There are good reasons to use an explicit phy-handle, and i would
> never block such code. However, implicit is historically how it was
> done. There are many DT blobs which assume it works. So implicit is
> not going away.
> If you want to only support explicit in U-Boot, that is fine. I would
> suggest making this clear in the U-Boot documentation.

I am happy that Prasanna made it possible for OF-based descriptions of
the internal PHYs to be written for the lan937x generation. I did take a
look at the bindings that Prasanna proposed and I think they would work
with what DM_DSA can parse too. The work that Tim Harvey did was for
ksz9897, and it is slightly different: the MDIO controller node has a
compatible string of "microchip,ksz-mdio", and a parent container node
of "mdios".
However, since the lan937x would probably have a different driver even
in U-Boot, 100% binding consistency between lan937x and ksz9897 is
probably not necessary, since some of that can boil down to driver
author choice too. As long as an OF based choice is available I'm
absolutely fine.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists