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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 17:30:35 +0100 From: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc> To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>, Kavyasree Kotagiri <kavyasree.kotagiri@...rochip.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] dt-bindings: net: mscc-miim: add lan966x compatible [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 <michael@...le.cc> >>>> --- >>>> 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. -michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists