netdev - Re: [PATCH net 0/2] allwinner: a523: Rename emac0 to gmac0

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: <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