linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: phy: micrel: 1588 support for LAN8814 phy

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: <YiIOwZih+I6gsNlM@lunn.ch>
Date:   Fri, 4 Mar 2022 14:06:09 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Divya Koppera <Divya.Koppera@...rochip.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, hkallweit1@...il.com,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        richardcochran@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, madhuri.sripada@...rochip.com,
        manohar.puri@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: phy: micrel: 1588 support for LAN8814
 phy

> +static struct kszphy_latencies lan8814_latencies = {
> +	.rx_10		= 0x22AA,
> +	.tx_10		= 0x2E4A,
> +	.rx_100		= 0x092A,
> +	.tx_100		= 0x02C1,
> +	.rx_1000	= 0x01AD,
> +	.tx_1000	= 0x00C9,
> +};

Seems odd to use hex here. Are these the defaults? At minimum, you
need to add these to the binding document, making it clear what
defaults are used. Also, what are the unit here?

> +	/* Make sure the PHY is not broken. Read idle error count,
> +	 * and reset the PHY if it is maxed out.
> +	 */
> +	regval = phy_read(phydev, MII_STAT1000);
> +	if ((regval & 0xFF) == 0xFF) {
> +		phy_init_hw(phydev);
> +		phydev->link = 0;
> +		if (phydev->drv->config_intr && phy_interrupt_is_valid(phydev))
> +			phydev->drv->config_intr(phydev);
> +		return genphy_config_aneg(phydev);
> +	}

Is this related to PTP? Or is the PHY broken in general? This looks
like it should be something submitted to stable.

> +static int lan8814_config_init(struct phy_device *phydev)
> +{
> +	int val;
> +
> +	/* Reset the PHY */
> +	val = lanphy_read_page_reg(phydev, 4, LAN8814_QSGMII_SOFT_RESET);
> +	val |= LAN8814_QSGMII_SOFT_RESET_BIT;
> +	lanphy_write_page_reg(phydev, 4, LAN8814_QSGMII_SOFT_RESET, val);
> +
> +	/* Disable ANEG with QSGMII PCS Host side */
> +	val = lanphy_read_page_reg(phydev, 5, LAN8814_QSGMII_PCS1G_ANEG_CONFIG);
> +	val &= ~LAN8814_QSGMII_PCS1G_ANEG_CONFIG_ANEG_ENA;
> +	lanphy_write_page_reg(phydev, 5, LAN8814_QSGMII_PCS1G_ANEG_CONFIG, val);
> +
> +	/* MDI-X setting for swap A,B transmit */
> +	val = lanphy_read_page_reg(phydev, 2, LAN8814_ALIGN_SWAP);
> +	val &= ~LAN8814_ALIGN_TX_A_B_SWAP_MASK;
> +	val |= LAN8814_ALIGN_TX_A_B_SWAP;
> +	lanphy_write_page_reg(phydev, 2, LAN8814_ALIGN_SWAP, val);

This does not look related to PTP. If David has not ready merged this,
i would of said you should of submitted this as a separate patch.

> +static void lan8814_parse_latency(struct phy_device *phydev)
> +{
> +	const struct device_node *np = phydev->mdio.dev.of_node;
> +	struct kszphy_priv *priv = phydev->priv;
> +	struct kszphy_latencies *latency = &priv->latencies;
> +	u32 val;
> +
> +	if (!of_property_read_u32(np, "lan8814,latency_rx_10", &val))
> +		latency->rx_10 = val;
> +	if (!of_property_read_u32(np, "lan8814,latency_tx_10", &val))
> +		latency->tx_10 = val;
> +	if (!of_property_read_u32(np, "lan8814,latency_rx_100", &val))
> +		latency->rx_100 = val;
> +	if (!of_property_read_u32(np, "lan8814,latency_tx_100", &val))
> +		latency->tx_100 = val;
> +	if (!of_property_read_u32(np, "lan8814,latency_rx_1000", &val))
> +		latency->rx_1000 = val;
> +	if (!of_property_read_u32(np, "lan8814,latency_tx_1000", &val))
> +		latency->tx_1000 = val;

Are range checks need here? You are reading a u32, but PHY registers
are generally 16 bit.

    Andrew