linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] of_mdio: add new DT property 'autoneg' for fixed-link

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <55A02656.7020508@list.ru>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 23:08:54 +0300
From:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
To:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sebastien Rannou <mxs@...k.org>,
	Arnaud Ebalard <arno@...isbad.org>,
	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] of_mdio: add new DT property 'autoneg' for fixed-link

10.07.2015 21:37, Florian Fainelli пишет:
> On 10/07/15 09:43, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>> Currently for fixed-link the MAC driver decides whether to use the
>> link status auto-negotiation or not.
>> Unfortunately the auto-negotiation may not work when expected by
>> the MAC driver. Sebastien Rannou explains:
>> << Yes, I confirm that my HW does not generate an in-band status. AFAIK, it's
>> a PHY that aggregates 4xSGMIIs to 1xQSGMII ; the MAC side of the PHY (with
>> inband status) is connected to the switch through QSGMII, and in this context
>> we are on the media side of the PHY. >>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/10/206
>>
>> This patch introduces the new boolean property 'autoneg' that allows
>> the user to request the auto-negotiation explicitly.
> The implementation looks better, but the name might still be slightly
> controversial. I would go with "use-in-band-status" which is more
> strictly defined than "autoneg" which could mean anything and everything.
>
> What do you think?
I actually think autoneg is a bit better.

- Autonegotiation is a widely used and known term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonegotiation
And who knows what in-band status is?
And, more importantly, who knows what is it used for?
Who even knows it is used for autonegotiation?

- When we set autoneg for fixed-link, we basically just
say "no MDIO here, but please do autoneg by any other
means, if possible".

- in-band status is an implementation delail, and it is
specific to a particular protocols. If you request the
in-band status for some protocol that doesn't support
it, perhaps you should get -EINVAL, because such a
config makes no sense. With autonegotiation, the rules
are not that strict: it can be "unimplemented", which doesn't
necessary mean nonsense in the config.

- autonegotiation is a wider term, and may be implemented
by some other means than the in-band status (which is
probably impossible for a fixed-link though).

- In the terms that the driver uses, it is autonegotiation, eg
MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG. And when you go down
the implementation details, you see MVNETA_GMAC_INBAND_AN_ENABLE,
which is just one AN bit of many.

So I really would prefer to keep things as is.
But if you insist, I can rename, but there will still be no
-EINVAL checks for obviously wrong configs.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/