linux-kernel - RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v1] net: mvpp2: divide fifo for dts-active ports only

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: <CO6PR18MB3873FC445787E395CCB710E4B0FC0@CO6PR18MB3873.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:03:00 +0000
From:   Stefan Chulski <stefanc@...vell.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com" <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>,
        Yan Markman <ymarkman@...vell.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "mw@...ihalf.com" <mw@...ihalf.com>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v1] net: mvpp2: divide fifo for dts-active ports
 only



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 5:52 PM
> To: Stefan Chulski <stefanc@...vell.com>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com;
> davem@...emloft.net; Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>; Yan Markman
> <ymarkman@...vell.com>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; kuba@...nel.org;
> mw@...ihalf.com; andrew@...n.ch
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v1] net: mvpp2: divide fifo for dts-active ports
> only
> 
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 03:44:05PM +0000, Stefan Chulski wrote:
> > Yes, but this allocation exists also in current code.
> > From HW point of view(MAC and PPv2) maximum supported speed in CP110:
> > port 0 - 10G, port 1 - 2.5G, port 2 - 2.5G.
> > in CP115: port 0 - 10G, port 1 - 5G, port 2 - 2.5G.
> >
> > So this allocation looks correct at least for CP115.
> > Problem that we cannot reallocate FIFO during runtime, after specific speed
> negotiation.
> 
> We could do much better. DT has a "max-speed" property for ethernet
> controllers. If we have that property, then I think we should use that to
> determine the initialisation time FIFO allocation.
> 
> As I say, on Macchiatobin, the allocations we end up with are just crazy when
> you consider the port speeds that the hardware supports.
> Maybe that should be done as a follow-on patch - but I think it needs to be
> done.

I agree with you. We can use "max-speed" for better FIFO allocations.
I plan to upstream more fixes from the "Marvell" devel branch then I can prepare this patch.
So you OK with this patch and then follow-on improvement?

Regards.