netdev - Re: [PATCH v3] dt-bindings: net: qcom,ethqos: Correct 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87423e4e-a766-49b5-8ca8-5a79329a7bfc@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 16:39:41 +0800
From: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
CC: 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>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio
	<konradybcio@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] dt-bindings: net: qcom,ethqos: Correct fallback
 compatible for qcom,qcs615-ethqos



On 2025-01-14 16:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 05:15:39PM +0800, Yijie Yang wrote:
>> The qcs615-ride utilizes the same EMAC as the qcs404, rather than the
>> sm8150.
>> The current fallback could lead to package loss, and the ethernet on
> 
> Packet? Package?

I made an error in word usage, and I will correct it.

> 
>> qcs615-ride was not utilized by anyone.
> 
> I don't get how this part of sentence is connected to previous part. I
> see the "and" but what do you want to say here? Packages with qcs615
> board were lost, therefore the ethernet was not used by anyone? Or
> packets could be lost and this means ethernet cannot be used?
> 

The word 'and' represents two independent facts without implying a 
logical relationship between them. The two facts correspondingly lead to 
the two conclusions in the next sentence.

>> Therefore, it needs to be revised,
>> and there is no need to worry about the ABI impact.
> 
> Again, Oxford comma of joining entirely independent claues. Can you
> filter this via someone / ChatGPT / Google grammar / Outlook grammar?

All the sentences here have been polished by Copilot. I will reorganize 
them for better understanding.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 
> 

-- 
Best Regards,
Yijie