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

Message-ID: <20210510090656.eiqlwp7t7hkvsxq3@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 11:06:56 +0200
From:   Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
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 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?

Regards,
Oleksij
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |