linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 2/4] net: phy: micrel: lan8841: set default PTP latency values

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, 17 Apr 2024 20:39:54 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
	Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
	Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
	Arun Ramadoss <arun.ramadoss@...rochip.com>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
	linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 2/4] net: phy: micrel: lan8841: set default
 PTP latency values

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 06:43:14PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> Set default PTP latency values to provide realistic path delay
> measurements and reflecting internal PHY latency asymetry.
> 
> This values are based on ptp4l measurements for the path delay against
> identical PHY as link partner and latency asymmetry extracted from
> documented SOF Latency values of this PHY.
> 
> Documented SOF Latency values are:
> TX 138ns/RX 430ns @ 1000Mbps
> TX 140ns/RX 615ns @ 100Mbps (fixed latency mode)
> TX 140ns/RX 488-524ns @ 100Mbps (variable latency mode)
> TX 654ns/227-2577ns @ 10Mbps

Does Half Duplex vs Full Duplex make a difference here?

> +static int lan8841_ptp_latency_init(struct phy_device *phydev)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = phy_write_mmd(phydev, KSZ9131RN_MMD_COMMON_CTRL_REG,
> +			    LAN8841_PTP_RX_LATENCY_10M,
> +			    LAN8841_PTP_RX_LATENCY_10M_VAL);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	ret = phy_write_mmd(phydev, KSZ9131RN_MMD_COMMON_CTRL_REG,
> +			    LAN8841_PTP_TX_LATENCY_10M,
> +			    LAN8841_PTP_TX_LATENCY_10M_VAL);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	ret = phy_write_mmd(phydev, KSZ9131RN_MMD_COMMON_CTRL_REG,
> +			    LAN8841_PTP_RX_LATENCY_100M,
> +			    LAN8841_PTP_RX_LATENCY_100M_VAL);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	ret = phy_write_mmd(phydev, KSZ9131RN_MMD_COMMON_CTRL_REG,
> +			    LAN8841_PTP_TX_LATENCY_100M,
> +			    LAN8841_PTP_TX_LATENCY_100M_VAL);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	ret = phy_write_mmd(phydev, KSZ9131RN_MMD_COMMON_CTRL_REG,
> +			    LAN8841_PTP_RX_LATENCY_1000M,
> +			    LAN8841_PTP_RX_LATENCY_1000M_VAL);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	return phy_write_mmd(phydev, KSZ9131RN_MMD_COMMON_CTRL_REG,
> +			     LAN8841_PTP_TX_LATENCY_1000M,
> +			     LAN8841_PTP_TX_LATENCY_1000M_VAL);
> +}

What affect does this have on systems which have already applied
adjustments in user space to correct for this? Will this cause
regressions for such systems?

I know Richard has rejected changes like this in the past.

	Andrew