netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/3] reset: microchip-sparx5: fix the broken switch reset

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:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 13:43:38 +0200
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
        Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
        Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] reset: microchip-sparx5: fix the broken switch reset

Am 2022-08-26 13:56, schrieb Michael Walle:
> The reset which is used by the switch to reset the switch core has many
> different side effects. It is not just a switch reset. Thus don't treat 
> it
> as one, but just issue the reset early during boot.
> 
> Michael Walle (3):
>   reset: microchip-sparx5: issue a reset on startup
>   dt-bindings: net: sparx5: don't require a reset line
>   net: lan966x: make reset optional
> 
>  .../bindings/net/microchip,sparx5-switch.yaml |  2 --
>  .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c |  3 ++-
>  drivers/reset/reset-microchip-sparx5.c        | 22 ++++++++++++++-----
>  3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Philipp, you could just patch #1, I guess. I'd then
resend patches #2 and #3 to the netdev ML targetting net-next.
As long as the device tree itself isn't changed, there should
be no dependency between these two.

-michael