linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] net: phy: introduce core support for phy-mode = "10g-qxgmii"

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: <f97fd2f0-3e39-4de0-8b1c-f333a0f56a7f@lunn.ch>
Date:   Sun, 26 Nov 2023 18:20:16 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Luo Jie <quic_luoj@...cinc.com>
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,
        hkallweit1@...il.com, linux@...linux.org.uk, corbet@....net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] net: phy: introduce core support for phy-mode =
 "10g-qxgmii"

On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 02:07:27PM +0800, Luo Jie wrote:
> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> 
> 10G-QXGMII is a MAC-to-PHY interface defined by the USXGMII multiport
> specification. It uses the same signaling as USXGMII, but it multiplexes
> 4 ports over the link, resulting in a maximum speed of 2.5G per port.
> 
> Some in-tree SoCs like the NXP LS1028A use "usxgmii" when they mean
> either the single-port USXGMII or the quad-port 10G-QXGMII variant, and
> they could get away just fine with that thus far. But there is a need to
> distinguish between the 2 as far as SerDes drivers are concerned.

Can this is split into two patches?

>  	switch (interface) {
>  	case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_USXGMII:
> -		caps |= MAC_10000FD | MAC_5000FD | MAC_2500FD;
> +		caps |= MAC_10000FD | MAC_5000FD;
> +		fallthrough;

This change seems to refer to the second paragraph, where as the rest
of the code is about the first. Or does splitting this cause a bisect
problem?

	Andrew