linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 8/9] net: phy: micrel: ksz886x/ksz8081: add cabletest support

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: <YJkqpxF9gu1XYdAs@lunn.ch>
Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 14:44:23 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Michael Grzeschik <m.grzeschik@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 8/9] net: phy: micrel: ksz886x/ksz8081: add
 cabletest support

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:06:56AM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 02:47:19PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 11:20:24AM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > > This patch support for cable test for the ksz886x switches and the
> > > ksz8081 PHY.
> > > 
> > > The patch was tested on a KSZ8873RLL switch with following results:
> > > 
> > > - port 1:
> > >   - cannot detect any distance
> > >   - provides inverted values
> > >     (Errata: DS80000830A: "LinkMD does not work on Port 1",
> > >      http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/KSZ8873-Errata-DS80000830A.pdf)
> > >     - Reports "short" on open or ok.
> > >     - Reports "ok" on short.
> > 
> > Quite broken. Distance is optional, simply don't report it.  Status is
> > harder. Reporting ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_RESULT_CODE_OK should really mean
> > the cable is O.K. If you cannot tell open from O.K, i would return
> > ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_RESULT_CODE_UNSPEC.
> > 
> 
> Yes, patch "net: phy: micrel: add patch for erratas on port1" provides
> a flag to return -ENOTSUPP on this port.
> 
> Is it acceptable way? Should I squash this patches?

This is O.K. Maybe add a comment that later patches in the series with
handle the errata?

       Andrew