linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: phy: micrel: Adding SQI 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]

Date:   Wed,  7 Sep 2022 11:07:50 +0200
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     Divya.Koppera@...rochip.com
Cc:     andrew@...n.ch, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, hkallweit1@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
        Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: phy: micrel: Adding SQI support for lan8814 phy

> On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 03:47:30PM +0530, Divya Koppera wrote:
>> Supports SQI(Signal Quality Index) for lan8814 phy, where
>> it has SQI index of 0-7 values and this indicator can be used
>> for cable integrity diagnostic and investigating other noise
>> sources. It is not supported for 10Mbps speed
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Divya Koppera <Divya.Koppera@...rochip.com>
>> ---
>> v1 -> v2
>> - Given SQI support for all pairs of wires in 1000/100 base-T phy's
>>   uAPI may run through all instances in future. At present returning
>>   only first instance as uAPI supports for only 1 pair.
>> - SQI is not supported for 10Mbps speed, handled accordingly.
>
> I would prefer you solve the problem of returning all pairs.
> 
> I'm not sure how useful the current implementation is, especially at
> 100Mbps, where pair 0 could actually be the transmit pair. Does it
> give a sensible value in that case?

It is good practice to CC the patches to the ones who gave feedback
on the previous versions. Not everyone is subscribed to all the
high traffic mailinglist.

Thanks,
-michael