netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 13/17] net: pse-pd: Use regulator framework within PSE framework

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: <290c516e-6cf7-4db2-9b32-c9dc7200fe73@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:53:54 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
	"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>,
	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 13/17] net: pse-pd: Use regulator framework
 within PSE framework

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 02:39:08PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 02:32:50PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > > +	psec = dev_find_pse_control(&phy->mdio.dev);
> > > > > +	if (IS_ERR(psec)) {
> > > > > +		rc = PTR_ERR(psec);
> > > > > +		goto unregister_phy;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +  
> > > > 
> > > > I do not think it is a good idea to make PSE controller depend on
> > > > phy->mdio.dev. The only reason why we have fwnode_find_pse_control()
> > > > here was the missing port abstraction.
> > > 
> > > I totally agree that having port abstraction would be more convenient.
> > > Maxime Chevallier is currently working on this and will post it after his
> > > multi-phy series get merged.
> > > Meanwhile, we still need a device pointer for getting the regulator. The
> > > phy->mdio.dev is the only one I can think of as a regulator consumer.
> > > Another idea?
> > 
> > Sorry, i've not been keeping up...
> > 
> > Doesn't the device tree binding determine this? Where is the consumer
> > in the tree?
> 
> The real consumer is outside of the system.

The device on the other end of the cable?

> Withing the system, it would be the RJ45 port, but we have no
> abstraction for ports so far.

A Linux regulator is generally used in a producer/consumer pair. If
there is no consumer device, why have a producer? What is going to use
the consumer API?

When we have a port representor, do we expect it to have active
elements? Something which will consume this regulator?

	  Andrew