linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] ethtool: provide UAPI for PHY master/slave configuration.

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: <20200417143239.GH744226@lunn.ch>
Date:   Fri, 17 Apr 2020 16:32:39 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        David Jander <david@...tonic.nl>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        mkl@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ethtool: provide UAPI for PHY master/slave
 configuration.

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:11:45AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:57:39PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
> > > index c8b0c34030d32..d5edf2bc40e43 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
> > > @@ -604,6 +604,7 @@ struct phy_device *phy_device_create(struct mii_bus *bus, int addr, u32 phy_id,
> > >  	dev->asym_pause = 0;
> > >  	dev->link = 0;
> > >  	dev->interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII;
> > > +	dev->master_slave = PORT_MODE_UNKNOWN;
> > 
> > phydev->master_slave is how we want the PHY to be configured. I don't
> > think PORT_MODE_UNKNOWN makes any sense in that contest. 802.3 gives
> > some defaults. 9.12 should be 0, meaning manual master/slave
> > configuration is disabled. The majority of linux devices are end
> > systems. So we should default to a single point device. So i would
> > initialise PORT_MODE_SLAVE, or whatever we end up calling that.
> 
> I'm not sure that is a good idea given that we use phylib to drive
> the built-in PHYs in DSA switches, which ought to prefer master mode
> via the "is a multiport device" bit.

O.K. So i assume you mean we should read from the PHY at probe time
what it is doing, in order to initialise dev->master_slave?

I would be happy with that.

  Andrew