Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-100814-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 22:40:39 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Ronnie.Kunin@microchip.com
Cc: Raju.Lakkaraju@microchip.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Bryan.Whitehead@microchip.com, richardcochran@gmail.com,
	UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 3/3] net: lan743x: Address problems with wake option
 flags configuration sequences
Message-ID: <fd22d022-cad4-489c-9861-36765dd98a87@lunn.ch>
References: <20240226080934.46003-1-Raju.Lakkaraju@microchip.com>
 <20240226080934.46003-4-Raju.Lakkaraju@microchip.com>
 <78d7e538-9fa0-490e-bcfb-0a5943ad80c9@lunn.ch>
 <LV8PR11MB87008454A629EE15B9CE14099F272@LV8PR11MB8700.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <PH8PR11MB79656DCF7806D7390C7100DE95272@PH8PR11MB7965.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <PH8PR11MB79656DCF7806D7390C7100DE95272@PH8PR11MB7965.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

> I understand that the TI devices give the *impression* of supporting
> both, but based on what I explained above, even if you accept
> WAKE_MAGIC and WAKE_MAGICSEGURE on a set and report them both back
> as enabled on a get; whatever behavior your hardware does will not
> be fully compliant to both specs simultaneously anyway. I discussed
> this with Raju and what we decided to do for our driver/device is
> that if you pass both WAKE_MAGIC and WAKE_MAGICSEGURE flags to us we
> will report them back as both being enabled in a subsequent get as
> you suggested, but the behavior of our driver/hardware will be as if
> you had only enabled WAKE_MAGIC.

So i agree having WAKE_MAGIC and WAKE_MAGICSECURE at the same time
seems very odd. So i see no real problem limiting the driver to only
one or the other. However, if the user does ask for both, i would say
silently ignoring one is incorrect. You should return -EOPNOTUPP to
make it clear you don't support both at the same time.

I would also say that silently ignore the Secure version is probably
the worst choice. Things should be secure by default...

     Andrew