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: <CAGb2v64vxtAVi3QK3a=mvDz2u+gKQ6XPMN-JB46eEuwfusMG2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2025 21:14:09 +0800
From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...nel.org>
To: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, 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 Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 7:23 AM Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com> wrote:
>
> 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.

I reiterate my position: they are not stable until they actually hit a
release. This provides some time to fix mistakes before they are set in
stone.

> 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.

For the compatible string, I can live with having a comment in the binding
stating the name used in the datasheet for reference.

For the pinctrl stuff, which is the contentious bit here, I thought the
whole idea of the newer pinctrl bindings is that the driver uses
"allwinner,pinmux" instead of "function". I think having both being valid
is confusing, and likely to cause conflicts later on. If we're going to
use the hardware register values in the device tree, I'd really like them
to be the only source of truth. The commit message for the binding also
sort of suggests that "allwinner,pinmux" is the part that matters.


ChenYu

> Cheers,
> Andre
>
> https://linux-sunxi.org/A64#Documentation
> https://linux-sunxi.org/H616#Documentation
> https://linux-sunxi.org/A523#Documentation