linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/7] net: phy: microchip_t1s: update new initial settings for LAN865X Rev.B0

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: <20241007090047.07483ee1@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 09:00:47 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: <Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com>
Cc: <andrew@...n.ch>, <hkallweit1@...il.com>, <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
 <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 <ramon.nordin.rodriguez@...roamp.se>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
 <Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/7] net: phy: microchip_t1s: update new
 initial settings for LAN865X Rev.B0

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 07:51:36 +0000 Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com
wrote:
> On 05/10/24 12:20 am, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> > On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:07:29 +0530 Parthiban Veerasooran wrote:  
> >> +     cfg_results[0] = FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(15, 10), (9 + offsets[0]) & 0x3F) |
> >> +                      FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(15, 4), (14 + offsets[0]) & 0x3F) |
> >> +                      0x03;
> >> +     cfg_results[1] = FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(15, 10), (40 + offsets[1]) & 0x3F);  
> > 
> > It's really strange to OR together FIELD_PREP()s with overlapping
> > fields. What's going on here? 15:10 and 15:4 ranges overlap, then
> > there is 0x3 hardcoded, with no fields size definition.  
> This calculation has been implemented based on the logic provided in the 
> configuration application note (AN1760) released with the product. 
> Please refer the link [1] below for more info.
> 
> As mentioned in the AN1760 document, "it provides guidance on how to 
> configure the LAN8650/1 internal PHY for optimal performance in 
> 10BASE-T1S networks." Unfortunately we don't have any other information 
> on those each and every parameters and constants used for the 
> calculation. They are all derived by design team to bring up the device 
> to the nominal state.
> 
> It is also mentioned as, "The following parameters must be calculated 
> from the device configuration parameters mentioned above to use for the
> configuration of the registers."
> 
> uint16 cfgparam1 = (uint16) (((9 + offset1) & 0x3F) << 10) | (uint16) 
> (((14 + offset1) & 0x3F) << 4) | 0x03
> uint16 cfgparam2 = (uint16) (((40 + offset2) & 0x3F) << 10)
> 
> This is the reason why the above logic has been implemented.

In this case the code should simply be:

     cfg_results[0] = FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(15, 10), 9 + offsets[0]) |
                      FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(9, 4), 14 + offsets[0]) |

the fields are clearly 6b each. FILED_PREP() already masks.

> > Could you clarify and preferably name as many of the constants
> > as possible?  
> I would like to do that but as I mentioned above there is no info on 
> those constants in the application note.
> > 
> > Also why are you masking the result of the sum with 0x3f?
> > Can the result not fit? Is that safe or should we error out?  
> Hope the above info clarifies this as well.
> >   
> >> +             ret &= GENMASK(4, 0);  
> > ?               if (ret & BIT(4))
> > 
> > GENMASK() is nice but naming the fields would be even nicer..
> > What's 3:0, what's 4:4 ?  
> As per the information provided in the application note, the offset 
> value expected range is from -5 to 15. Offsets are stored as signed 
> 5-bit values in the addresses 0x04 and 0x08. So 0x1F is used to mask the 
> 5-bit value and if the 4th bit is set then the value from 27 to 31 will 
> be considered as -ve value from -5 to -1.
> 
> I think adding the above comment in the above code snippet will clarify 
> the need. What do you think?

Oh yes, a comment, e.g. /* 5-bit signed value, sign extend */
would help a lot, thanks!