netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 4/4] net: ethernet: renesas: rswitch: Add phy_power

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: <20230130175905.7d77781d@thinkpad>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2023 17:59:05 +0100
From:   Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>
To:     Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>
Cc:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "hkallweit1@...il.com" <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 4/4] net: ethernet: renesas: rswitch: Add
 phy_power_{on,off}() calling

On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 16:48:02 +0000
"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 05:30:48PM +0100, Marek Behún wrote:
> > But rswitch already uses phylink, so should Yoshihiro convert it whole
> > back to phylib? (I am not sure how much phylink API is used, maybe it
> > can stay that way and the new phylib function as proposed in Yoshihiro's
> > previous proposal can just be added.)  
> 
> In terms of "how much phylink API is used"... well, all the phylink
> ops functions are currently entirely empty. So, phylink in this case
> is just being nothing more than a shim between the driver and the
> corresponding phylib functions.
> 

Yoshihiro, sorry for this. If not for my complaints, your proposal could
already be merged (maybe). Anyway, I think the best solution would be
to implement phylink properly, even for cases that are not relevant for
your board*, but this would take a non-trivial amount of time, so
I will understand if you want to stick with phylib.

* Altough you don't use fixed-link or SFP on your board, I think it
  should be possible to test it somehow if you implemented it...
  For example, I have tested fixed-link between SOC and switch SerDes
  by configuring it in device-tree on both sides.

Marek