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: <7d3e83e9-df2d-4fc3-9ee0-75c401555ffc@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 09:28:50 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: "Sverdlin, Alexander" <alexander.sverdlin@...mens.com>
Cc: "olteanv@...il.com" <olteanv@...il.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: honor "max-speed" for implicit PHYs
 on user ports

> However, after reading the whole referenced thread, I still have a question:
> will MFD approach (with both drivers and dt-bindings) will be a requirement
> for any new drivers or a simpler approach with "mdio {}" node under the
> switch node will still be acceptable?

There is a long history of MAC drivers having MDIO drivers embedded in
them. So i see no need for an MFD just to have an MDIO device. If
there are additional drivers, GPIO, I2C, etc, then an MFD makes sense.

	Andrew