netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] dt-bindings: net: convert sff,sfp to dtschema

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:   Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:59:03 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] dt-bindings: net: convert sff,sfp to dtschema

On 30/03/2022 18:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

(...)

>>
>> These examples are showing how the SFP gets hooked up directly to a MAC
>> or directly to a PHY. Would you prefer them to be in the ethernet-mac
>> and ethernet-phy yaml files instead? It seems utterly perverse to split
>> an example across several different yaml files.
> 
> Probably PHY or MAC is better place, because it defines the "sfp" property.
> 
> How is it different from other cases like this in bindings (clocks,
> power domains, GPIOs)? IOW, why SFP is special? If it is, sure, let's
> keep it here...

BTW, Rob actually pointed out the difference here - it's only one such
provider binding (unlike clock controllers) - and said it's fine, so
good for me.

Best regards,
Krzysztof