netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 10/17] net: pse-pd: Add support for PSE PIs

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: <ZeIG3rsLJg2rgV58@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:48:30 +0100
From: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
To: Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Russ Weight <russ.weight@...ux.dev>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Dent Project <dentproject@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 10/17] net: pse-pd: Add support for PSE PIs

Hay Köry,

On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 05:10:05PM +0100, Köry Maincent wrote:
> Hello Oleskij,
> 
> Thanks you for the review.

I'll try to review more at weekend.

> > > +		/* Legacy OF description of PSE PIs */
> > > +		pcdev->of_legacy = true;  
> > 
> > It is not "legacy" :) PoDL do not providing definition of PSE PI since there
> > is only one pair. May be: single_pair, no_pse_pi or any other idea.
> 
> You right it is not needed for PoDL. Maybe no_pse_pi is better according to the
> following thoughts.
> 
> Just wondering, how a pse controller that support PoE and PoDL simultaneously
> would be exposed in the binding. In that case I suppose all the PIs (PoE and
> PoDL) need to use the pse-pi subnode. Then the "alternative pinout" and
> "polarity" parameter would not be requested for PoDL PIs.

In case of hybrid device I would expect that we will have an 4 pair
connector where only one pair will be used. In this case we will need to
know what pair and polarity is supported or can be configured for PoDL.
It will be full blown PSE PI node with PoDL specific extras.

Don't worry about it right now.

Regards,
Oleksij
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |