linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/9] net: ethernet: oa_tc6: implement OA TC6 configuration function

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: <0a56fde2-3190-4f65-9fc5-b1d5ff0da6a8@microchip.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:10:42 +0000
From:   <Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com>
To:     <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
        <pabeni@...hat.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        <corbet@....net>, <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
        <rdunlap@...radead.org>, <horms@...nel.org>,
        <casper.casan@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com>,
        <Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>, <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/9] net: ethernet: oa_tc6: implement OA TC6
 configuration function

Hi Andrew,

On 27/10/23 1:36 am, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
>>>> -struct oa_tc6 *oa_tc6_init(struct spi_device *spi, bool prote)
>>>> +struct oa_tc6 *oa_tc6_init(struct spi_device *spi)
>>>
>>> Was there a reason to have prote initially, and then remove it here?
>> The reason is, control communication uses "protect". But in the first
>> patch there was no dt used. Later in this patch, dt used for all the
>> configuration parameters and this also part of that. That's why removed
>> and moved this to dt configuration.
>>
>> What's your opinion? shall I keep as it is like this? or remove the
>> protect in the first two patches and introduce in this patch?
> 
> It will actually depend on what goes into the DT binding. If using
> protections costs very little, i would just hard code it on. Maybe you
> can run some iperf tests and see if it makes a measurable difference.
> 
> How fast an SPI bus are you using on your development board? If you
> have a 50Mbps SPI bus, it does not even matter, since the media
> bandwidth is just 10Mbps.
Actually protection is only used for control communication to read/write 
registers. It is not used in data communication where ethernet frame 
transfer performed. So it doesn't hurt data traffic. But of course in 
between data communication I may perform some control transfer for 
register read/write but they are not big and will not affect the speed. 
In my development board I use 15MHz speed SPI bus.

As this is given as a configurable parameter in the OPEN Alliance 
specification, I have implemented it in the DT binding for user 
input/choice.

Best Regards,
Parthiban V
> 
>      Andrew