linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Add erratum 3.14 for 88E6390X and 88E6190X

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: <e1cdc94be0e515a5de9d4af8fccfd99e25435b73.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jul 2023 12:47:43 +0200
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Ante Knezic <ante.knezic@...mholz.de>,
        "Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     andrew@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        olteanv@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Add erratum 3.14 for
 88E6390X and 88E6190X

[adding Russell]
On Tue, 2023-07-25 at 11:59 +0200, Ante Knezic wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 10:56:25 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote
> > It looks like you are ignoring the errors reported by
> > mv88e6390_erratum_3_14(). Should the above be:
> > 
> > 		return mv88e6390_erratum_3_14(mpcs);
> > 
> > instead?
> > 
> 
> I guess you are right. Would it make sense to do the evaluation for the 
> 	mv88e639x_sgmii_pcs_control_pwr(mpcs, true);
> above as well?

Good question ;) it looks like pcs_post_config() errors are always
ignored by the core, but I guess it's better to report them as
accurately as possible.

@Russell, what it your preference here, should we just ignore the
generate errors earlier, or try to propagate them to the core/phylink,
should that later be changed to deal with them?

Thanks,

Paolo