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:   Sun, 13 Mar 2022 17:30:35 +0100
From:   Michael Walle <>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Rob Herring <>, Andrew Lunn <>,
        Heiner Kallweit <>,
        Russell King <>,,,,
        Horatiu Vultur <>,
        Kavyasree Kotagiri <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] dt-bindings: net: mscc-miim: add lan966x

[adding Horatiu and Kavyasree from Microchip]

Am 2022-03-13 17:10, schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On 13/03/2022 11:47, Michael Walle wrote:
>> Am 2022-03-13 10:47, schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>>> On 13/03/2022 01:25, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>> The MDIO controller has support to release the internal PHYs from
>>>> reset
>>>> by specifying a second memory resource. This is different between 
>>>> the
>>>> currently supported SparX-5 and the LAN966x. Add a new compatible to
>>>> distiguish between these two.
> Typo here, BTW.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <>
>>>> ---
>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
>>>> index 7104679cf59d..a9efff252ca6 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
>>>> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Microsemi MII Management Controller (MIIM) / MDIO
>>>>  =================================================
>>>>  Properties:
>>>> -- compatible: must be "mscc,ocelot-miim"
>>>> +- compatible: must be "mscc,ocelot-miim" or "mscc,lan966x-miim"
>>> No wildcards, use one, specific compatible.
>> I'm in a kind of dilemma here, have a look yourself:
>> grep -r "lan966[28x]-" Documentation
>> Should I deviate from the common "name" now? To make things
>> worse, there was a similar request by Arnd [1]. But the
>> solution feels like cheating ("lan966x" -> "lan966") ;)
> The previous 966x cases were added by one person from Microchip, so he
> actually might know something. But do you know whether lan966x will
> cover all current and future designs from Microchip? E.g. lan9669 (if
> ever made) will be the same? Avoiding wildcard is the easiest, just
> choose one implementation, e.g. "lan9662".

So if Microchip would review/ack this it would be ok? I don't really
have a strong opinion, I just want to avoid any inconsistencies. If no
one from Microchip will answer, I'll use microchip,lan9668-miim.

> Different topic is that all current lan966[28] are from Microchip and
> you still add Microsemi, even though it was acquired by Microchip.
> That's an inconsistency which should be rather fixed.

Agreed, that was an oversight by me.

>> On a side note, I understand that there should be no wildcards,
>> because the compatible should target one specific implementation,
>> right? But then the codename "ocelot" represents a whole series of
>> chips. Therefore, names for whole families shouldn't be used neither,
>> right?
> You're not adding "ocelot" now, so it is separate topic. However a
> compatible like "mscc,ocelot" feels wrong, unless it is used as a
> fallback (see: git grep 'apple,').

Sure, it was just a question for my understanding, not to make a
point for a discussion.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists