Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Rust abstractions for network PHY drivers

FUJITA Tomonori
2023-10-06T14:09:40Z

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 14:54:43 +0200
Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 06:49:08PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>> This patchset adds Rust abstractions for network PHY drivers. It
>> doesn't fully cover the C APIs for PHY drivers yet but I think that
>> it's already useful. I implement two PHY drivers (Asix AX88772A PHYs
>> and Realtek Generic FE-GE). Seems they work well with real hardware.
>
> One of the conventions for submitting patches for netdev is to include
> the tree in the Subject.
>
> [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] rust: core abstractions for network PHY drivers
>
> This is described here, along with other useful hits for working with
> netdev.
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-netdev.html
>
> This tag helps patchworks decide which tree to apply your patches to
> and then run build tests on it:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20231006094911.3305152-4-fujita.tomonori@gmail.com/
>
> I don't know if it made the wrong decision based on the missing tag,
> or it simply does not know what to do with Rust yet.

Thanks, I didn't know how tags and patchworks works.

> There is also the question of how we merge this. Does it all come
> through netdev? Do we split the patches, the abstraction merged via
> rust and the rest via netdev? Is the Kconfig sufficient that if a tree
> only contains patches 2 and 3 it does not allow the driver to be
> enabled?

A tree only that contains patches 2 and 3 allow the driver to be
enabled, I think. The driver depends on CONFIG_RUST, which might
doesn't have PHY bindings support (the first patch).

So I think that merging the patchset through a single tree is easier;
netdev or rust.

Miguel, how do you prefer to merge the patchset?