netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: realtek: add compatible strings for RTL8367RB-VB

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, 13 Apr 2022 15:38:31 -0300
From:   Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@...il.com>
To:     Alvin Šipraga <ALSI@...g-olufsen.dk>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "tobias@...dekranz.com" <tobias@...dekranz.com>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "vladimir.oltean@....com" <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: realtek: add compatible strings for RTL8367RB-VB

> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 06:04:07PM -0300, Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca wrote:
> > RTL8367RB-VB was not mentioned in the compatible table, nor in the
> > Kconfig help text.
> >
> > The driver still detects the variant by itself and ignores which
> > compatible string was used to select it. So, any compatible string will
> > work for any compatible model.
>
> This is not quite true: a compatible string of realtek,rtl8366rb will select the
> other subdriver, assuming it is available.

Yes, how about:

The string (no matter which one) is currently only used to select the
subdriver. Then, the subdriver
will ignore which compatible string was used and it will detect the
variant by itself using the
chip id/version returned by the device.

rtl8367rb chip ID/version of the '67RB is already included in the
driver and in the dt-bindings.

> Besides that small inaccuracy, I think your description is missing one crucial
> bit of information, which is that the chip ID/version of the '67RB is already
> included in the driver. Otherwise it reads as though the '67RB has the same ID
> as one of the already-supported chips ('65MB or '67S).
> With the above clarifications:
>
> Reviewed-by: Alvin Šipraga <alsi@...g-olufsen.dk>