linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v2 1/1] net: dsa: microchip: make sure drive strength configuration is not lost by soft reset

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: <935b7bd6fe116291ff5f1f5a7a52cdad89e4607a.camel@microchip.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 03:29:32 +0000
From: <Arun.Ramadoss@...rochip.com>
To: <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: <kernel@...gutronix.de>, <olteanv@...il.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/1] net: dsa: microchip: make sure drive strength
 configuration is not lost by soft reset

Hi Jakub,

On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 19:14 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> know the content is safe
> 
> On Tue,  5 Mar 2024 07:48:02 +0100 Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > This driver has two separate reset sequence in different places:
> > - gpio/HW reset on start of ksz_switch_register()
> > - SW reset on start of ksz_setup()
> > 
> > The second one will overwrite drive strength configuration made in
> > the
> > ksz_switch_register().
> > 
> > To fix it, move ksz_parse_drive_strength() from
> > ksz_switch_register() to
> > ksz_setup().
> > 
> > Fixes: d67d7247f641 ("net: dsa: microchip: Add drive strength
> > configuration")
> > Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
> 
> Hm, this is much larger than I anticipated, and also doesn't apply,
> so there will be conflict with -next. Andrew, should we go back to
> the v1?

Suggestion: Instead of moving ksz_parse_drive_strength() from end of
file to above, can we move ksz_setup() & ksz_teardown() down. So that
the changes will be minimal. Will that work?