netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 6/7] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: provide software node for default settings

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4ae939e1-8d11-4308-ace3-7e862f0bd24a@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 19:17:27 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 6/7] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: provide software
 node for default settings

> So, given that this is only supposed to be used for mv88e6xxx because
> of it's legacy, maybe the check in dsa_port_phylink_create() should
> be:
> 
>         fwnode = of_fwnode_handle(dp->dn);
>         if (fwnode && ds->ops->port_get_fwnode) {
> 
> In other words, we only allow the replacement of the firmware
> description if one already existed.

That sounds reasonable.

> Alternatively, we could use:
> 
> 	if (!dsa_port_is_user(dp) && ds->ops->port_get_fwnode) {
> 
> since mv88e6xxx today only does this "max speed" thing for CPU and
> DSA ports, and thus we only need to replace the firmware description
> for these ports - and we can document that port_get_fwnode is only
> for CPU and DSA ports.

Also reasonable.

The first seems better for the Non-DT, where as the second makes it
clear it is supposed to be for CPU and DSA ports only.

Is it over the top to combine them?

   Andrew