Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] dt-bindings: net: add
 nvmem-mac-address-offset property
To:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc:     Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
References: <20210414152657.12097-1-michael@walle.cc>
 <20210414152657.12097-2-michael@walle.cc> <YHcNtdq+oIYcB08+@lunn.ch>
 <20210415215955.GA1937954@robh.at.kernel.org>
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a49f4027-126f-7bcc-24e5-75499ec5e1fa@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:45:31 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/78.0 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210415215955.GA1937954@robh.at.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 4/15/2021 2:59 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:43:49PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:26:55PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
>>> It is already possible to read the MAC address via a NVMEM provider. But
>>> there are boards, esp. with many ports, which only have a base MAC
>>> address stored. Thus we need to have a way to provide an offset per
>>> network device.
>>
>> We need to see what Rob thinks of this. There was recently a patchset
>> to support swapping the byte order of the MAC address in a NVMEM. Rob
>> said the NVMEM provider should have the property, not the MAC driver.
>> This does seems more ethernet specific, so maybe it should be an
>> Ethernet property?
> 
> There was also this one[1]. I'm not totally opposed, but don't want to 
> see a never ending addition of properties to try to describe any 
> possible transformation.

If only we could load eBPF bytecode embedded into Device Tree ;)
-- 
Florian