netdev - Re: [net-next v3 0/3] net: dsa: yt921x: Add support for Motorcomm YT921x

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: <1ceb8a8f-140a-4b54-be2a-df9ac2c219b6@lunn.ch>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2025 17:20:45 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: David Yang <mmyangfl@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
	"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>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next v3 0/3] net: dsa: yt921x: Add support for Motorcomm
 YT921x

On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 01:23:18PM +0800, David Yang wrote:
> Motorcomm YT921x is a series of ethernet switches developed by Shanghai
> Motorcomm Electronic Technology, including:
> 
>   - YT9215S / YT9215RB / YT9215SC: 5 GbE phys
>   - YT9213NB / YT9214NB: 2 GbE phys
>   - YT9218N / YT9218MB: 8 GbE phys
> 
> and up to 2 serdes interfaces.
> 
> This patch adds basic support for a working DSA switch.
> 
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250814065032.3766988-1-mmyangfl@gmail.com
>   - fix words in dt binding
>   - add support for lag and mst

Please don't add new features between revisions. Reviewers spend time
reviewing the code. They assume just the issues raised will be
address, and the rest of the code remains unchanged. It then means
they just need to check the issues raised have been addressed. By
adding new features, they back to the beginning, having to review all
the code again, because you potentially added new issues.

LAG and MST should of been implemented as patches on top of the basic
driver. They can then be reviewed as small increments.

Please put yourself in our position. How would you review this code?
That would make it easy for you to review it?

	Andrew