netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 01/13] dt-bindings: net: dsa: realtek-smi: remove unsupported switches

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:   Sat, 18 Dec 2021 03:12:47 -0300
From:   Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@...il.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        vivien.didelot@...il.com, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        olteanv@...il.com,
        Alvin Šipraga <ALSI@...g-olufsen.dk>,
        Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 01/13] dt-bindings: net: dsa: realtek-smi: remove
 unsupported switches

>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 9:14 PM <luizluca@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@...il.com>
> >
> > Remove some switch models that are not cited in the code. Although rtl8366s
> > was kept, it looks like a stub driver (with a FIXME comment).
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@...il.com>
>
> Why? The device tree bindings are done with the ambition to be used
> on several operating systems and the fact that the code in the Linux
> kernel is not using them or citing them is not a reason to remove them.
> We often define bindings for devices which don't even have a driver
> in Linux.
>
> A reason to delete them would be if they are family names and not
> product names, i.e. no devices have this printed on the package.
> I have seen physical packages saying "RTL8366RB" and
> "RTL8366S" for sure, the rest I don't know about...
>
> So we need compatibles for each physically existing component
> that people might want to put in their device tree. Whether they have
> drivers or not.

Thanks Linus,

However, it also gives the users a false expectative that it is
supported (it has happened to me a couple of times). I would not like
to simply drop this. How about adding a "(not supported)" comment.
Would it be acceptable?