netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: phy: fixed

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: <d618cdc8-593f-43e3-8ac1-663e2d6617d9@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 08:03:18 +0200
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
 "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: phy: fixed_phy: remove link gpio support

On 9/4/2025 2:32 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 20:37:02 +0200 Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> The only user of fixed_phy gpio functionality was here:
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/vf/vf610-zii-dev-rev-b.dts
>> Support for the switch on this board was migrated to phylink
>> (DSA - mv88e6xxx) years ago, so the functionality is unused now.
>> Therefore remove it.
> 
> Sorry if I'm mixing things up and misunderstanding.
> There was a recent conversation regarding backward compat
> with device trees. Was it related to this patch? Is the policy 
> that we only care about in-tree device trees?
> Would it make sense to document in the commit message?
> 
This other conversation was about something different, the deprecated
old fixed-link binding. Wrt link gpio there is a very small risk
that there's out-of-tree users who use link gpio with a switch chip
not handled by DSA. I can mention this in the commit message. And yes,
my current understanding is that we care about in-tree dt's only.