linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/6] net: mdio: scan bus based on bus capabilities for C22 and C45

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Sun, 12 Mar 2023 10:04:11 +0100
From:   Klaus Kudielka <klaus.kudielka@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>,
        John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Mark Lee <Mark-MC.Lee@...iatek.com>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Bryan Whitehead <bryan.whitehead@...rochip.com>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/6] net: mdio: scan bus based on bus
 capabilities for C22 and C45

On Sun, 2023-03-12 at 03:53 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > 
> > What you are proposing here would not show any improvement on the
> > Omnia, as only the 6 ports would be scanned - right? 
> 
> Correct. But their also should not of been any noticeable slow down,
> because there should not be any additional scanning when everything is
> described in DT. And the move of the MDIO bus registration from probe
> to setup should actually make it faster than before.
> 

But then, why *do* I see such a big difference on the Omnia?

mdiobus_scan_bus_c45() takes:
~2.7 seconds without phy_mask patch
~0.2 seconds with phy_mask patch

(It's not a big deal, but somehow strange)

Regards, Klaus


PS: There was another open question: How long does the first
unsuccessful mv88e6xxx_probe() take, when calling
mv88e6xxx_mdios_register() from mv88e6xxx_setup()?

I would say "negligible":

[    0.194414] mv88e6085 f1072004.mdio-mii:10: *** mv88e6xxx_probe call ***
[    0.194739] mv88e6085 f1072004.mdio-mii:10: switch 0x1760 detected: Marvell 88E6176, revision 1
[    0.208163] mv88e6085 f1072004.mdio-mii:10: *** mv88e6xxx_probe return -517 ***