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: <20250926122757.jvcl7xi6435wlztw@skbuf>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 15:27:57 +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 02:21:16PM +0200, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> The 09/26/2025 15:20, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> I got a little bit confused here.
> Because no one answer to this email, I thought it might not be OK, so
> that is the reason why I said that I will go with Russell approach.
> But if you think that this approach that I proposed here is OK (as you seem
> to be). Then I will go with this and then I will not do Russell
> suggestion because it is not needed anymore.

Yes, sorry, I am in the middle of some work and I'm not as responsive as
I should be.