linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] TSN auto negotiation between 1G and 2.5G

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: <f9b21a9d-4ae2-1f91-b621-2e27f746f661@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Sep 2023 20:25:05 +0800
From:   Choong Yong Liang <yong.liang.choong@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Rajneesh Bhardwaj <irenic.rajneesh@...il.com>,
        David E Box <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
        Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
        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>,
        Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Wong Vee Khee <veekhee@...le.com>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Revanth Kumar Uppala <ruppala@...dia.com>,
        Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@....com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andrey.konovalov@...aro.org>,
        Jochen Henneberg <jh@...neberg-systemdesign.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, Voon Wei Feng <weifeng.voon@...el.com>,
        Tan Tee Min <tee.min.tan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Michael Sit Wei Hong <michael.wei.hong.sit@...el.com>,
        Lai Peter Jun Ann <jun.ann.lai@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] TSN auto negotiation between 1G and 2.5G



On 4/8/2023 8:04 pm, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 04:45:22PM +0800, Choong Yong Liang wrote:
>> Intel platforms’ integrated Gigabit Ethernet controllers support
>> 2.5Gbps mode statically using BIOS programming. In the current
>> implementation, the BIOS menu provides an option to select between
>> 10/100/1000Mbps and 2.5Gbps modes. Based on the selection, the BIOS
>> programs the Phase Lock Loop (PLL) registers. The BIOS also read the
>> TSN lane registers from Flexible I/O Adapter (FIA) block and provided
>> 10/100/1000Mbps/2.5Gbps information to the stmmac driver. But
>> auto-negotiation between 10/100/1000Mbps and 2.5Gbps is not allowed.
>> The new proposal is to support auto-negotiation between 10/100/1000Mbps
>> and 2.5Gbps . Auto-negotiation between 10, 100, 1000Mbps will use
>> in-band auto negotiation. Auto-negotiation between 10/100/1000Mbps and
>> 2.5Gbps will work as the following proposed flow, the stmmac driver reads
>> the PHY link status registers then identifies the negotiated speed.
>> Based on the speed stmmac driver will identify TSN lane registers from
>> FIA then send IPC command to the Power Management controller (PMC)
>> through PMC driver/API. PMC will act as a proxy to programs the
>> PLL registers.
> 
> Have you considered using out of band for all link modes? You might
> end up with a cleaner architecture, and not need any phylink/phylib
> hacks.
> 
> 	Andrew
Hi Andrew,

After conducting a comprehensive study, it seems that implementing 
out-of-band for all link modes might not be feasible. I may have missed 
some key aspects during my analysis.

Would you be open to sharing a high-level idea of how we could potentially 
make this feasible? Your insights would be greatly appreciated.

By the way, I've submitted a new design that not exposing phylink's AN mode 
into phylib. Please help review it to determine if it is acceptable.