netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/2] net: phy: Support master-slave config via device tree

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: <5befa01e-f52d-44de-b356-bc7e1946777a@lunn.ch>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 20:41:42 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/2] net: phy: Support master-slave config
 via device tree

On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 06:06:30PM +0200, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 10:40:20 +0200 Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > This patch series adds support for configuring the master/slave role of
> > PHYs via the device tree. A new `master-slave` property is introduced in
> > the device tree bindings, allowing PHYs to be forced into either master
> > or slave mode. This is particularly necessary for Single Pair Ethernet
> > (SPE) PHYs (1000/100/10Base-T1), where hardware strap pins may not be
> > available or correctly configured, but it is applicable to all PHY
> > types.
> 
> I was hoping we'd see some acks here in time, but now Linus cut the 6.11
> final so the 6.12 game is over now:

The device tree binding is not decided on yet. So deferred is correct.

    Andrew