linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: mdiobus: Prevent spike on MDIO bus reset signal

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 28 Jan 2021 00:25:55 +0000
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Mike Looijmans <mike.looijmans@...ic.nl>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: mdiobus: Prevent spike on MDIO bus reset signal

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 01:00:57AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 01:49:38PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 02:14:40PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 08:33:37AM +0100, Mike Looijmans wrote:
> > > > The mdio_bus reset code first de-asserted the reset by allocating with
> > > > GPIOD_OUT_LOW, then asserted and de-asserted again. In other words, if
> > > > the reset signal defaulted to asserted, there'd be a short "spike"
> > > > before the reset.
> > > > 
> > > > Instead, directly assert the reset signal using GPIOD_OUT_HIGH, this
> > > > removes the spike and also removes a line of code since the signal
> > > > is already high.
> > > 
> > > Hi Mike
> > > 
> > > This however appears to remove the reset pulse, if the reset line was
> > > already low to start with. Notice you left
> > > 
> > > fsleep(bus->reset_delay_us);
> > > 
> > > without any action before it? What are we now waiting for?  Most data
> > > sheets talk of a reset pulse. Take the reset line high, wait for some
> > > time, take the reset low, wait for some time, and then start talking
> > > to the PHY. I think with this patch, we have lost the guarantee of a
> > > low to high transition.
> > > 
> > > Is this spike, followed by a pulse actually causing you problems? If
> > > so, i would actually suggest adding another delay, to stretch the
> > > spike. We have no control over the initial state of the reset line, it
> > > is how the bootloader left it, we have to handle both states.
> > 
> > Andrew, I don't get what you're saying.
> > 
> > Here is what happens depending on the pre-existing state of the
> > reset signal:
> > 
> > Reset (previously asserted):   ~~~|_|~~~~|_______
> > Reset (previously deasserted): _____|~~~~|_______
> >                                   ^ ^    ^
> >                                   A B    C
> > 
> > At point A, the low going transition is because the reset line is
> > requested using GPIOD_OUT_LOW. If the line is successfully requested,
> > the first thing we do is set it high _without_ any delay. This is
> > point B. So, a glitch occurs between A and B.
> > 
> > We then fsleep() and finally set the GPIO low at point C.
> > 
> > Requesting the line using GPIOD_OUT_HIGH eliminates the A and B
> > transitions. Instead we get:
> > 
> > Reset (previously asserted)  : ~~~~~~~~~~|______
> > Reset (previously deasserted): ____|~~~~~|______
> >                                    ^     ^
> >                                    A     C
> > 
> > Where A and C are the points described above in the code. Point B
> > has been eliminated.
> > 
> > Therefore, to me the patch looks entirely reasonable and correct.
> 
> I wonder if there are any PHYs which actually need a pulse? Would it
> be better to have:
> 
>  Reset (previously asserted):   ~~~|____|~~~~|_______
>  Reset (previously deasserted): ________|~~~~|_______
>                                    ^    ^    ^    ^
>                                    A    B    C    D
> 
> Point D is where we actually start talking to the PHY. C-D is
> reset-post-delay-us, and defaults to 0, but can be set via DT.  B-C is
> reset-delay-us, and defaults to 10us, but can be set via DT.
> Currently A-B is '0', so we get the glitch. But should we make A-B the
> same as B-C, so we get a real pulse?

I do not see any need for A-B - what is the reason for it? You will
find most datasheets talk about a clock must be active for some number
of clock cycles prior to the reset signal being released, or minimum
delay after power up before reset is released, or talking about a
minimum pulse width.

Note that looking at a few of the Marvell PHY datasheets, they require
a minimum reset pulse width of 10ms and between 5ms and 50ms before
the first access. AR8035 also talks about 10ms.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!