Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 28 Aug 2023 12:17:19 +0200
From:   Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>
To:     "Radu Pirea (NXP OSS)" <radu-nicolae.pirea@oss.nxp.com>
Cc:     andrew@lunn.ch, hkallweit1@gmail.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk,
        davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
        pabeni@redhat.com, richardcochran@gmail.com,
        sebastian.tobuschat@nxp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v2 5/5] net: phy: nxp-c45-tja11xx: implement
 mdo_insert_tx_tag
Message-ID: <ZOx0L722xg5-J_he@hog>
References: <20230824091615.191379-1-radu-nicolae.pirea@oss.nxp.com>
 <20230824091615.191379-6-radu-nicolae.pirea@oss.nxp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230824091615.191379-6-radu-nicolae.pirea@oss.nxp.com>
Precedence: bulk

2023-08-24, 12:16:15 +0300, Radu Pirea (NXP OSS) wrote:
> Implement mdo_insert_tx_tag to insert the TLV header in the ethernet
> frame.
> 
> If extscs parameter is set to 1, then the TLV header will contain the
> TX SC that will be used to encrypt the frame, otherwise the TX SC will
> be selected using the MAC source address.

In which case would a user choose not to use the SCI? Using the MAC
address is probably fine in basic setups, but having to fiddle with a
module parameter (so unloading and reloading the module, which means
losing network connectivity) to make things work when the setup
evolves is really not convenient.

Is there a drawback to always using the SCI?

-- 
Sabrina