linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] Update documentation for KSZ DSA drivers so that new drivers can be added

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]

Date:   Fri, 8 Sep 2017 21:01:22 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Tristram.Ha@...rochip.com
Cc:     muvarov@...il.com, pavel@....cz, nathan.leigh.conrad@...il.com,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Update documentation for KSZ DSA drivers so that new
 drivers can be added

> > So i would suggest one driver supporting all the different devices.
> 
> There will be 5 drivers to support these devices:
> 
> ksz9477.c - KSZ9893/KSZ9897/KSZ9567/KSZ9566/KSZ9477
> ksz8795.c - KSZ8795/KSZ8795/KSZ8765
> ksz8895.c - KSZ8895/KSZ8864
> ksz8863.c - KSZ8863/KSZ8873
> ksz8463.c - KSZ8463
> 
> These chips have different SPI access mechanisms, MIB counter reading,
> and register set.  These can be combined into one single driver using
> function pointers, at least for ksz8795/ksz8895/ksz8863/ksz8463.  My
> only concern is the memory footprint.  The customer may not want a
> big driver to cover all the switches while only one is used.

If memory footprint is your problem, make it a compile time choice
which devices are supported within the one driver. In practice, you
will find most distributions just enable them all.

> Out of topic I have a question to ask the community regarding the DSA
> port creation:
> 
> Port 1 can be specified using the reg parameter specifying 0; port 2, 1;
> and so on.  The KSZ8794 is a variant of KSZ8795 with port 4 disabled.
> So
> lan1 = 0, lan2 = 1, lan3 = 2, cpu = 4.
> But our company Marketing does not want to promote that fact but treat
> KSZ8794 as a distinct product.
> So
> lan1 = 0, lan2 = 1, lan3 = 2, cpu = 3.
> Is this okay to hide this information inside the driver?  This is manageable
> for KSZ8794 but for KSZ8864 the first port is disabled:
> lan1 = 1, lan2 = 2, lan3 = 3, cpu = 4.
> 
> I am not sure whether DSA has or will have a way to display the port
> mapping to regular users.

So the port number to name is determined in the device tree. It
depends on the board how the ports are named. I always suggest going
by the label on the box. clearfog is a good example of this, 0 - lan5,
1 - lan4, etc.

So for the KSZ8864, ensure reg = 0 causes an error.

Does the hardware force which port is used for the CPU? I've boards
with Marvell devices where the CPU is port 0, or port 6, or port
7. The hardware does not care. So we don't force anything.

As for KSZ8794 vs KSZ8795, is there different IDs in the silicon?  It
is these IDs you are using, not the compatible string, to determine
how the drive the silicon. You can trust the ID in the
silicon. Anything else can be wrong.

	 Andrew