netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] net: stmmac: allow drivers to explicitly select PHY device

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: <CADvTj4posNXP4FCXPqABtP0cMD1dPUH+hXcRQnetZ65ReKjOKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 17:46:30 -0600
From: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, 
	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>, 
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, 
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, 
	"Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>, Furong Xu <0x1207@...il.com>, 
	Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] net: stmmac: allow drivers to explicitly select
 PHY device

On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 2:02 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 01:21:21PM -0600, James Hilliard wrote:
> > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 1:14 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 11:55:54AM -0600, James Hilliard wrote:
> > > > Some devices like the Allwinner H616 need the ability to select a phy
> > > > in cases where multiple PHY's may be present in a device tree due to
> > > > needing the ability to support multiple SoC variants with runtime
> > > > PHY selection.
> > >
> > > I'm not convinced about this yet. As far as i see, it is different
> > > variants of the H616. They should have different compatibles, since
> > > they are not actually compatible, and you should have different DT
> > > descriptions. So you don't need runtime PHY selection.
> >
> > Different compatibles for what specifically? I mean the PHY compatibles
> > are just the generic "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22" compatibles.
>
> You at least have a different MTD devices, exporting different
> clocks/PWM/Reset controllers. That should have different compatibles,
> since they are not compatible. You then need phandles to these
> different clocks/PWM/Reset controllers, and for one of the PHYs you
> need a phandle to the I2C bus, so the PHY driver can do the
> initialisation. So i think in the end you know what PHY you have on
> the board, so there is no need to do runtime detection.

Hmm, thinking about this again, maybe it makes sense to just
do the runtime detection in the MFD driver entirely, as it turns
out the AC300 initialization sequence is largely a subset of the
AC200 initialization sequence(AC300 would just not need any
i2c part of the initialization sequence). So if we use the same
MFD driver which internally does autodetection then we can
avoid the need for selecting separate PHY's entirely. This at
least is largely how the vendor BSP driver works at the moment.

Would this approach make sense?

> What you might want however is to validate the MTD device compatible
> against the fuse and return -ENODEV if the compatible is wrong for the
> fuse.
>
>         Andrew