netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 0/2] net: phylink: Fix issue w/ BMC link flap

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: <d2c690d2-d0f7-4fe2-9e8f-08e71e543901@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 15:11:56 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux@...linux.org.uk, hkallweit1@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 0/2] net: phylink: Fix issue w/ BMC link flap

> Part of the issue would be who owns the I2C driver. Both the firmware
> and the host would need access to it. Rather than having to do a
> handoff for that it is easier to have the firmware maintain the driver
> and just process the requests for us via mailbox IPC calls.

How do you incorporate that into sfp.c? sfp_i2c_configure() and
sfp_i2c_get() expect a Linux I2C bus, since this is supposed to be a
plain simple I2C bus. I'm not sure we want to encourage other
abstractions of an I2C bus than the current Linux I2C bus abstraction.

	Andrew