linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v2] phy: mscc: Fix PTP for vsc8574 and VSC8572

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: <20250926122038.3mv2plj3bvnfbple@skbuf>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 15:20:38 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, andrew@...n.ch, hkallweit1@...il.com,
	linux@...linux.org.uk, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	pabeni@...hat.com, richardcochran@...il.com,
	vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev, rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk,
	christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr, rosenp@...il.com,
	steen.hegelund@...rochip.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] phy: mscc: Fix PTP for vsc8574 and VSC8572

On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 09:11:11AM +0200, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> I have been asking around about these revisions of the PHYs and what is
> available:
> vsc856x - only rev B exists
> vsc8575 - only rev B exists
> vsc8582 - only rev B exists
> vsc8584 - only rev B exists
> vsc8574 - rev A,B,C,D,E exists
> vsc8572 - rev A,B,C,D,E exists
> 
> For vsc856x, vsc8575, vsc8582, vsc8584 the lower 4 bits in register 3
> will have a value of 1.
> For vsc8574 and vsc8572 the lower 4 bits in register 3 will have a value
> of 0 for rev A, 1 for rev B and C, 2 for D and E.
> 
> Based on this information, I think both commits a5afc1678044 and
> 75a1ccfe6c72 are correct regarding the revision check.
> 
> So, now to be able to fix the PTP for vsc8574 and vsc8572, I can do the
> following:
> - start to use PHY_ID_MATCH_MODEL for vsc856x, vsc8575, vsc8582, vsc8584
> - because of this change I will need to remove also the WARN_ON() in the
>   function vsc8584_config_init()
> - then I can drop the check for revision in vsc8584_probe()
> - then I can make vsc8574 and vsc8572 to use vsc8584_probe()
> 
> What do you think about this?

This sounds good, however I don't exactly understand how it fits in with
your response to Russell to replace phydev->phy_id with phydev->drv->phy_id
in the next revision. If the revision check in vsc8584_probe() goes away,
where will you use phydev->drv->phy_id?