linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: ls1046ardb: Replace XGMII with 10GBASE-R phy mode

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]

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 00:37:06 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>
Cc: zachary.goldstein@...current-rt.com, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
	Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@....com>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	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>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: ls1046ardb: Replace XGMII with 10GBASE-R phy mode

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:12:52PM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 2/20/24 09:50, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > Notice that unlike fm1-mac10 (node "ethernet@...00"), there is no
> > pcs-handle-names property (fm1-mac10 has it defined in fsl-ls1046-post.dtsi,
> > whereas fm1-mac9 doesn't. Don't ask me why, I don't know....)
> 
> I think this is just because this ethernet is always XFI and never (Q)SGMII.

Is that so? With SerDes protocol 0x3333, won't the PCS that's connected
to fm1-mac9 use SGMII/1000BASE-X (thus not 10GBASE-R)?

And as for QSGMII, what's the relevance of that? You can't have one
device tree good for all SerDes protocols and RCW pinmuxing options.
Either there are 4 MACs aggregated onto a single lane, or there is one
MAC per lane, but I've never encountered any use case for alternating
between these 2 configurations at runtime, or with same device tree for
that matter, have you? QSGMII seems to have been the original motivation
for listing all possible PCSes of a MAC in pcs-handle-names, but again, why?

> Can you please submit this patch? I noticed this but never had the chance to go
> back and debug it.

https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240220223442.1275946-1-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com/