netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Make *_c45 callbacks agree with phy_*

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: <1aab2398-2fe9-40b6-aa5b-34dde946668a@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 15:30:20 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Tim Menninger <tmenninger@...estorage.com>, f.fainelli@...il.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Make *_c45 callbacks agree with
 phy_*_c45 callbacks

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 02:33:49PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 05:51:13PM -0800, Tim Menninger wrote:
> > My impression is still that the read_c45 function should agree with the
> > phy_read_c45 function, but that isn't a hill I care to die on if you still
> > think otherwise. Thoughts?
> 
> FWIW, Tim's approach is consistent with what drivers/net/mdio/mdio-mux.c does.
> 
> 		if (parent_bus->read)
> 			cb->mii_bus->read = mdio_mux_read;
> 		if (parent_bus->write)
> 			cb->mii_bus->write = mdio_mux_write;
> 		if (parent_bus->read_c45)
> 			cb->mii_bus->read_c45 = mdio_mux_read_c45;
> 		if (parent_bus->write_c45)
> 			cb->mii_bus->write_c45 = mdio_mux_write_c45;
> 
> My only objection to his patch (apart from the commit message which
> should indeed be more detailed) is that I would have preferred the same
> "if" syntax rather than the use of a ternary operator with NULL.

I agree it could be fixed this way. But what i don't like about the
current code is how C22 and C45 do different things with error
codes. Since the current code is trying to use an error code, i would
prefer to fix that error code handling, rather than swap to a
different way to indicate its not supported.

	  Andrew