netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: sparx5: add missing lan969x Kconfig dependency

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: <20241113195615.wotnc6jbkbckiwsj@DEN-DL-M70577>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:56:15 +0000
From: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
CC: <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Steen
 Hegelund" <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"Jens Emil Schulz Østergaard"
	<jensemil.schulzostergaard@...rochip.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: sparx5: add missing lan969x Kconfig
 dependency

Hi Arnd,

> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> 
> The sparx5 switchdev driver can be built either with or without support
> for the Lan969x switch. However, it cannot be built-in when the lan969x
> driver is a loadable module because of a link-time dependency:
> 
> arm-linux-gnueabi-ld: drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.o:(.rodata+0xd44): undefined reference to `lan969x_desc'
> 
> Add a Kconfig dependency to reflect this in Kconfig, allowing all
> the valid configurations but forcing sparx5 to be a loadable module
> as well if lan969x is.

Checked the different configurations and the change fixed it. Thanks!

> 
> Fixes: 98a01119608d ("net: sparx5: add compatible string for lan969x")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> ---
> Side note: given that lan969x is always built as part of sparx5,
> wouldn't it make more sense to move all of it into the sparx5
> subdirectory?
> ---

IDK .. I think I prefer it *not* being hidden under the sparx5 dir. If
we have any guidelines for this, I will gladly comply. :-)

/Daniel

Reviewed-by: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>