netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: net: add new property st,ext-phyclk in documentation for stm32

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 09:28:57 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Christophe Roullier <christophe.roullier@...s.st.com>,
 "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
 Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
 Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, Jose Abreu
 <joabreu@...opsys.com>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: net: add new property st,ext-phyclk
 in documentation for stm32

On 07/03/2024 14:59, Christophe Roullier wrote:
> Add property st,ext-phyclk to manage cases when PHY have no cristal/quartz
> This property can be used with RMII phy without cristal 50Mhz and when we
> want to select RCC clock instead of ETH_REF_CLK
> Can be used also with RGMII phy with no cristal and we select RCC clock
> instead of ETH_CLK125
> 

Nothing improved here. You say you add new property (wrote it explicitly
in the subject), but where is it? Where is the user?

I think we talked about this. Rob also asked quite clear:

>That is obvious from the diff. What is not obvious is why we need a new
> property and what is the problem with the existing ones.

How did you solve it?

Best regards,
Krzysztof