linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v4 2/2] net: phy: aquantia: remove usage of phy_set_max

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b5487e8a-53d8-441c-8752-ce6af93e12a3@quicinc.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 09:55:05 -0700
From: "Abhishek Chauhan (ABC)" <quic_abchauha@...cinc.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "Russell King (Oracle)"
	<linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
        "David S. Miller"
	<davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski
	<kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>,
        "Heiner
 Kallweit" <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski
	<bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
        "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brad Griffis <bgriffis@...dia.com>,
        "Vladimir
 Oltean" <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        "Przemek Kitszel" <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, <kernel@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 2/2] net: phy: aquantia: remove usage of
 phy_set_max_speed



On 9/30/2024 5:18 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> I think this is getting overly complex, so let's rewind a bit.
>>
>> I believe Abhishek mentioned in a previous review what the differences
>> are between what the PHY reports when read, and what it actually
>> supports, and the result was that there was not a single bit in the
>> supported mask that was correct. I was hopeful that maybe Andrew would
>> respond to that, but seems not to, so I'm putting this statement here.
>> More on this below.
> 
> Yes, i did not really realise how wrong Marvell got this. As you point
> out, it is more wrong than right.
> 
> My thinking with calling the usual feature discovery mechanism and
> then fixing them up, is that we keep extending them. BaseT1 has been
> added etc. If a PHY is mostly getting it right, we might in the future
> get new features implemented for free, if the hardware correctly
> declares them. But in this case, if it cannot get even the basics
> mostly correct, there is little hope it will get more exotic features
> correct.
> 
> So, i agree in Russell. Forget about asking the hardware, just hard
> code the correct features.
> 
> Sorry for making you do extra work which you now need to discard.
> 
No worries, Its better to discuss now than to regret later. I will 
make the changes accordingly and raise v5 today after testing. 
Thanks Russell/Maxime/Andrew. 

> However, please do keep it as two patches. It makes it easier to deal
> with regressions on the device you cannot test if we can just revert
> one patch.
> 
> 	Andrew