netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 05/10] net: dsa: microchip: add DSA support for microchip lan937x

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YRQxfJT/RjpL8JOZ@lunn.ch>
Date:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 22:22:20 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Prasanna Vengateshan <prasanna.vengateshan@...rochip.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com,
        hkallweit1@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vivien.didelot@...il.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 05/10] net: dsa: microchip: add DSA support
 for microchip lan937x

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 11:20:19PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 09:14:14PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 08:23:04PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > I hope that using "*-internal-delay-ps" for Mac would be the right option.
> > > > Shall i include these changes as we discussed in next revision of the patch? 
> > > 
> > > Yes, that seems sensible. But please limit them to the CPU port. Maybe
> > > return -EINVAL for other ports.
> > 
> > Hmm. Don't we want ports that are "MAC like" to behave "MAC like" ?
> > In other words, shouldn't a DSA port that can be connected to an
> > external PHY should accept the same properties as a conventional
> > Ethernet MAC e.g. in a SoC device?
> 
> +1, I thought the whole purpose of the discussion was to stop singling
> out the CPU port as being special in any way w.r.t. RGMII delays.

Yes, sorry.

What we don't want is it acting upon phy-mode.

     Andrew