netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: honor "max-speed" for implicit PHYs on user ports

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: <20241219193623.vanwiab3k7hz5tb5@skbuf>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 21:36:23 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: "Sverdlin, Alexander" <alexander.sverdlin@...mens.com>
Cc: "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: honor "max-speed" for implicit PHYs
 on user ports

On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 06:50:18PM +0000, Sverdlin, Alexander wrote:
> There are still switch drivers in tree, which only implement .phy_read/.phy_write
> callbacks (which means, they rely on .user_mii_bus ?), even gigabit-capable,
> such as vsc73xx, rtl8365mb, rtl8366rb... But I'm actually interested in an
> out of tree driver for a new generation of lantiq_gsw hardware, under
> Maxlinear branch, which is planned to be submitted upstream at some point.
> 
> The relevant question is then, is it acceptable API (.phy_read/.phy_write),
> or any new gigabit-capable driver must use some form of mdiobus_register
> to populate the MDIO bus explicitly itself?

See the documentation patches which I never managed to finish for general
future directions:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20231208193518.2018114-4-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com/

Not explicitly having a phy-handle should be seen a legacy feature,
which we are forced to keep for compatibility with existing drivers.