netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 5/6] dsa: lan9303: Determine CPU port based on dsa

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]

Message-ID: <20221212183652.7wtzgcvtjgwsqwbr@skbuf>
Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 20:36:52 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Jerry.Ray@...rochip.com
Cc:     andrew@...n.ch, f.fainelli@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        jbe@...gutronix.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 5/6] dsa: lan9303: Determine CPU port based
 on dsa_switch ptr

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 05:42:01PM +0000, Jerry.Ray@...rochip.com wrote:
> > It looks like there is potentially more code to unlock than this simple
> > API change, which is something you could look at.
> 
> I understand your point. The LAN9303 is very flexible, supporting an I2C
> method for managing the switch and allowing the xMII to operate as either
> MAC or PHY.
> 
> The original driver was written targeting the primary configuration most
> widely used by our customers. The host CPU has an xMII interface and the
> MDIO bus is used for control. Adding in the flexibility to support other
> configurations is something I will investigate as I expand the driver to
> support LAN9353/LAN9354/LAN9355 devices. Adding the
> private->info->supports_mii[] as was done in the ksz drivers is the most
> likely approach. I see this as a separate patch series.  Would you agree?
> 
> I will hardcode for port 0 at this point rather than looking at CPU port.

Yes, I think that would be ok. Thanks for at least not baking in any
more assumptions in the driver that already exist.