netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] dt-bindings: net: ethernet-phy: remove eee-broken flags which have never had a user

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: <b5bb5e17-66cc-42e5-a000-b33dfe04b5b3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 23:18:59 +0200
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
 "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] dt-bindings: net: ethernet-phy: remove
 eee-broken flags which have never had a user

On 17.04.2025 21:20, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 09:55:55PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> These flags have never had a user, so remove support for them.
> 
> They have never been used, but they are a logical description of the
> bits in the EEE registers. Do we think vendors have gotten better with
> EEE and are less likely to get it wrong at these higher speeds? Are we
> deleting them to just bring them back later? I don't know.
> 
These modes are not new, and I would expect that if there would be PHY
EEE issues, we should know meanwhile.

Even for 100BaseT/1000BaseT most eee-broken DT flags exist as a workaround
because the MAC doesn't support EEE. It's not that EEE in the respective
PHY's would be broken.

> I don't think there is any maintenance burden from them, so i would
> just leave them?
> 
I don't have a strong opinion here. If consensus is that we better leave
this code in, then fine with me.

> 	Andrew

Heiner