linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: phy: broadcom: add 1000Base-X support for BCM54616S

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: <20190805131531.GB24275@lunn.ch>
Date:   Mon, 5 Aug 2019 15:15:31 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Tao Ren <taoren@...com>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Arun Parameswaran <arun.parameswaran@...adcom.com>,
        Justin Chen <justinpopo6@...il.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org" <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: phy: broadcom: add 1000Base-X support
 for BCM54616S

On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 06:38:16AM +0000, Tao Ren wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On 8/4/19 7:51 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >>> The patchset looks better now. But is it ok, I wonder, to keep
> >>> PHY_BCM_FLAGS_MODE_1000BX in phydev->dev_flags, considering that
> >>> phy_attach_direct is overwriting it?
> >>
> > 
> >> I checked ftgmac100 driver (used on my machine) and it calls
> >> phy_connect_direct which passes phydev->dev_flags when calling
> >> phy_attach_direct: that explains why the flag is not cleared in my
> >> case.
> > 
> > Yes, that is the way it is intended to be used. The MAC driver can
> > pass flags to the PHY. It is a fragile API, since the MAC needs to
> > know what PHY is being used, since the flags are driver specific.
> > 
> > One option would be to modify the assignment in phy_attach_direct() to
> > OR in the flags passed to it with flags which are already in
> > phydev->dev_flags.
> 

> It sounds like a reasonable fix/enhancement to replace overriding
> with OR, no matter which direction we are going to (either adding
> 1000bx aneg in genphy or providing phy-specific aneg callback).

> Do you want me to send out the patch (I feel it's better to be in a
> separate patch?) or someone else will take care of it?

Hi Tao

Please send a patch.

Thanks
       Andrew