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: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:27:00 +0200 From: Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com> To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, Allan Nielsen <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [net-next 1/5] net: mdio: fwnode: add fwnode_mdiobus_register() Le Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:03:16 +0200, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> a écrit : > > > > > > Does fwnode have any documentation? How does a developer know what > > > properties can be passed? Should you be adding a > > > > > > Documentation/fwnode/bindings/net/mdio.yaml ? > > > > > > Andrew > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > Actually, fwnode is an abstraction for various firmware nodes such as > > ACPI, device-tree and software nodes. It allows to access properties, > > child and other attributes transparently from these various nodes but > > does not actually defines how they should describe the hardware. If > > there is specific hanling to be done, node type can be checked using > > is_acpi_node(), is_of_node() and so on. > > > > I think it is still needed to document the bindings for each node type. > > But you seem to be implementing a subset of what each node type > supports. So maybe it would be good to document which parts of the OF > binding can be used, which parts of the ACPI binding can be used, etc. With this series, fwnode_mdiobus_register() supports exactly the same subset that is supported by of_mdiobus_register(). This is not true for ACPI though, but I could easily add this support providing that someone could test it. Or I can left it as is and document that ACPI is not supported and add some checks to avoid fwnode_mdiobus_register being called with an ACPI node. What would you prefer ? The goal in the end is to be able to use only fwnode_mdiobus_register() to register mdiobus device whatever the node type. > > Andrew -- Clément Léger, Embedded Linux and Kernel engineer at Bootlin https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists