linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: phy: mscc: enable MAC SerDes autonegotiation

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]

Date:   Tue, 8 Feb 2022 21:27:52 +0530
From:   Raag Jadav <raagjadav@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com>,
        Bjarni Jonasson <bjarni.jonasson@...rochip.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: mscc: enable MAC SerDes autonegotiation

On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 03:09:48AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > MAC implementation[1] in a lot of NXP SoCs comes with in-band aneg enabled
> > by default, and it does expect Clause 37 auto-negotiation to complete
> > between MAC and PHY before the actual data transfer happens.
> > 
> > [1] https://community.nxp.com/pwmxy87654/attachments/pwmxy87654/t-series/3241/1/AN3869(1).pdf
> > 
> > I faced such issue while integrating VSC85xx PHY
> > with one of the recent NXP SoC having similar MAC implementation.
> > Not sure if this is a problem on MAC side or PHY side,
> > But having Clause 37 support should help in most cases I believe.
> 
> So please use this information in the commit message.
> 
> The only danger with this change is, is the PHY O.K with auto-neg
> turned on, with a MAC which does not actually perform auto-neg? It
> could be we have boards which work now because PHY autoneg is turned
> off.
> 

Introducing an optional device tree property could be of any help?

>       Andrew