netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: net: qcom,ethqos: Drop fallback compatible for qcom,qcs615-ethqos

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: <c0bcf78f-409c-4992-99de-5e91a8f134e5@lunn.ch>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2024 17:17:57 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@...cinc.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
	Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, 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>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org>,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
	Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
	Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: net: qcom,ethqos: Drop fallback
 compatible for qcom,qcs615-ethqos

On Wed, Dec 25, 2024 at 04:58:20PM +0800, Yijie Yang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2024-12-24 17:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 24/12/2024 04:07, Yijie Yang wrote:
> > > The core version of EMAC on qcs615 has minor differences compared to that
> > > on sm8150. During the bring-up routine, the loopback bit needs to be set,
> > > and the Power-On Reset (POR) status of the registers isn't entirely
> > > consistent with sm8150 either.
> > > Therefore, it should be treated as a separate entity rather than a
> > > fallback option.
> > 
> > ... and explanation of ABI impact? You were asked about this last time,
> > so this is supposed to end up here.
> 
> I actually replied to this query last time, but maybe it wasn't clear.
> Firstly, no one is using Ethernet on this platform yet. Secondly, the
> previous fallback to sm8150 is incorrect and causes packet loss. Instead, it
> should fall back to qcs404.

One of the purposes of the commit message is to answer questions
reviews might have. You were even asked this question, so that should
of been a clue to include the answer in the commit message.

	Andrew