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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20250706002223.128ff760@minigeek.lan> Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2025 00:22:23 +0100 From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com> To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...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>, Jernej Skrabec <jernej@...nel.org>, Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/2] allwinner: a523: Rename emac0 to gmac0 On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 17:53:17 +0200 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote: Hi Andrew, > > So it's really whatever Allwinner wants to call it. I would rather have > > the names follow the datasheet than us making some scheme up. > > Are the datasheets publicly available? We collect them in the sunxi wiki (see the links below), but just to make sure: I am not disputing that GMAC is the name mentioned in the A523 manual, and would have probably been the right name to use originally - even though it's not very consistent, as the same IP is called EMAC in the older SoCs' manuals. I am also not against renaming identifiers or even (internal) DT labels. But the problem here is that the renaming affects the DT compatible string and the pinctrl function name, both of which are used as an interface between the devicetree and its users, which is not only the Linux kernel, but also U-Boot and other OSes like the BSDs. In this particular case we would probably get away with it, because it's indeed very early in the development cycle for this SoC, but for instance the "emac0" function name is already used in some U-Boot patch series on the list: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sunxi/20250323113544.7933-18-andre.przywara@arm.com/ If we REALLY need to rename this, it wouldn't be the end of the world, but would create some churn on the U-Boot side. I just wanted to point out that any changes to the DT bindings have some impact to other projects, even if they are proposed as a coherent series on the Linux side. Hence my question if this is really necessary. Cheers, Andre https://linux-sunxi.org/A64#Documentation https://linux-sunxi.org/H616#Documentation https://linux-sunxi.org/A523#Documentation
Powered by blists - more mailing lists