netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add ethernet support for RPi5

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250818115705.72533d08@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 11:57:05 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
Cc: Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@...e.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 Broadcom internal kernel review list
 <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>, Andrew Lunn
 <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Rob Herring
 <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Andrea della Porta <andrea.porta@...e.com>, Nicolas
 Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>, Claudiu Beznea
 <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>, Phil Elwell <phil@...pberrypi.com>, Jonathan
 Bell <jonathan@...pberrypi.com>, Dave Stevenson
 <dave.stevenson@...pberrypi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add ethernet support for RPi5

On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 11:52:28 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 8/18/25 11:50, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 11:02:15 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote:  
> >> netdev maintainers, do you mind if I take patches 2, 4 and 5 via the
> >> Broadcom ARM SoC tree to avoid generating conflicts down the road? You
> >> can take patches 1 and 3. Thanks  
> > 
> > 4, 5 make perfect sense, why patch 2? We usually take bindings.  
> 
> Because that way when CI runs against the ARM SoC tree, we don't get 
> errors that the bindings are undocumented.

Hm, my understanding is that validation should use bindings from
linux-next.. tho I'm not 100% sure. Perhaps DT maintainers can
clarify. This problem exists for all DT changes, unless there's
something exceptional about the patches I'd rather follow the default
process.