netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: phy: fixed_phy: add helper fixed_phy_register

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: <17b8fed7-fb42-4409-a831-1bdbf0eac33f@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 20:59:10 +0200
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
 "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: phy: fixed_phy: add helper
 fixed_phy_register_100fd

On 10/22/2025 3:20 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 22:11:44 +0200 Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> In few places a 100FD fixed PHY is used. Create a helper so that users
>> don't have to define the struct fixed_phy_status. First user is the
>> dsa loop driver. A follow-up series will remove the usage of
>> fixed_phy_add() from bcm47xx and coldfire/m5272, then this helper
>> will be used too.
> 
> Not knowing the area too well it looks like struct fixed_phy_status
> is an argument struct to make it easier to add / pass thru extra
> attrs without having to modify all the callers. This series goes
> in the opposite direction trying to make the callers not have to
> declare the argument struct.
> 
> When reading the code it may also be easier to graps the code if 
> the definition is local vs having to look at fixed_phy_register_100fd()
> Granted the function name kinda makes it obvious what it does.
> 
> Lastly: 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> So the improvement here is not immediately obvious to me.
> Maybe it'd be easier to appreciate this series if it was in one
> piece with what you mentioned as a follow up?

Makes sense, I'll prepare and submit the full series.