linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 4/4] net: dp83869: Add RGMII internal delay 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fd70a4c5-0489-bb47-5ad8-b0d668495b17@ti.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jun 2020 18:25:38 -0500
From:   Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, <andrew@...n.ch>,
        <hkallweit1@...il.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <robh@...nel.org>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 4/4] net: dp83869: Add RGMII internal delay
 configuration

Florian

On 6/2/20 6:18 PM, Dan Murphy wrote:
> Florian
>
> On 6/2/20 6:13 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>
>> On 6/2/2020 4:10 PM, Dan Murphy wrote:
>>> Florian
>>>
>>> On 6/2/20 5:33 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>> On 6/2/2020 9:45 AM, Dan Murphy wrote:
>>>>> Add RGMII internal delay configuration for Rx and Tx.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
>>>>> ---
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>>    enum {
>>>>>        DP83869_PORT_MIRRORING_KEEP,
>>>>>        DP83869_PORT_MIRRORING_EN,
>>>>> @@ -108,6 +113,8 @@ enum {
>>>>>    struct dp83869_private {
>>>>>        int tx_fifo_depth;
>>>>>        int rx_fifo_depth;
>>>>> +    s32 rx_id_delay;
>>>>> +    s32 tx_id_delay;
>>>>>        int io_impedance;
>>>>>        int port_mirroring;
>>>>>        bool rxctrl_strap_quirk;
>>>>> @@ -232,6 +239,22 @@ static int dp83869_of_init(struct phy_device
>>>>> *phydev)
>>>>>                     &dp83869->tx_fifo_depth))
>>>>>            dp83869->tx_fifo_depth = DP83869_PHYCR_FIFO_DEPTH_4_B_NIB;
>>>>>    +    ret = of_property_read_u32(of_node, "rx-internal-delay-ps",
>>>>> +                   &dp83869->rx_id_delay);
>>>>> +    if (ret) {
>>>>> +        dp83869->rx_id_delay =
>>>>> + dp83869_internal_delay[DP83869_CLK_DELAY_DEF];
>>>>> +        ret = 0;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    ret = of_property_read_u32(of_node, "tx-internal-delay-ps",
>>>>> +                   &dp83869->tx_id_delay);
>>>>> +    if (ret) {
>>>>> +        dp83869->tx_id_delay =
>>>>> + dp83869_internal_delay[DP83869_CLK_DELAY_DEF];
>>>>> +        ret = 0;
>>>>> +    }
>>>> It is still not clear to me why is not the parsing being done by 
>>>> the PHY
>>>> library helper directly?
>>> Why would we do that for these properties and not any other?
>> Those properties have a standard name, which makes them suitable for
>> parsing by the core PHY library.
>>> Unless there is a new precedence being set here by having the PHY
>>> framework do all the dt node parsing for common properties.
>> You could parse the vendor properties through the driver, let the PHY
>> library parse the standard properties, and resolve any ordering
>> precedence within the driver. In general, I would favor standard
>> properties over vendor properties.
>>
>> Does this help?
>
> Ok so new precedence then.
>
> Because there are common properties like tx-fifo-depth, rx-fifo-depth, 
> enet-phy-lane-swap and max_speed that the PHY framework should parse 
> as well.
>
I am assuming that the retrieval of the property and getting the index 
should be 2 separate APIs?

One API to get the property value and one API to find the index value.

Dan


> Dan
>