netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v4 06/11] net: phy: Export some functions

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: <CA+_ehUxH1ZLgARNM7XRHd+j2Nuqu7P6oQh335VdzBGG-OeNCrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 10:39:50 +0200
From: "Christian Marangi (Ansuel)" <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, upstream@...oha.com, 
	Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 06/11] net: phy: Export some functions

Il giorno gio 15 mag 2025 alle ore 10:12 Russell King (Oracle)
<linux@...linux.org.uk> ha scritto:
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 07:57:16PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 May 2025 12:10:08 -0400 Sean Anderson wrote:
> > > Export a few functions so they can be used outside the phy subsystem:
> > >
> > > get_phy_c22_id is useful when probing MDIO devices which present a
> > > phy-like interface despite not using the Linux ethernet phy subsystem.
> > >
> > > mdio_device_bus_match is useful when creating MDIO devices manually
> > > (e.g. on non-devicetree platforms).
> > >
> > > At the moment the only (future) user of these functions selects PHYLIB,
> > > so we do not need fallbacks for when CONFIG_PHYLIB=n.
> >
> > This one does not apply cleanly.
>
> In any case, we *still* have two competing implementations for PCS
> support, and the authors have been asked to work together, but there's
> been no sign of that with both authors posting their patch sets within
> the last week.
>
> Plus, I had asked for the patches to be posted as RFC because I'm not
> going to have time to review them for a while (you may have noticed a
> lack of patches from myself - because I don't have time to post them
> as I'm working on stuff directed by my employer.)
>
> Sadly, being employed means there will be times that I don't have the
> bandwidth to look at mainline stuff.
>

Hi Russell,
my 2 cent on the topic, I'm more than happy to collaborate with Sean but
the implementation idea between the 2 is so different that we really need
some guidance on what is possible and what is not.

As said by Daniel, in my series we can totally introduce a compat layer
based on this and the all the PCS documentation for this is golden and
lovely.

For RFC, in my series I moved out of it to trigger some additional build test
and also because it seems to me sometimes RFC patch when net-next is
open gets ignored. (And also to stress that the thing works and is not only
an idea)

I know you are full busy with life and work, this is just to explain some
decisions from my side.