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  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:	Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:53:10 +0000
From:	David Hollis <>
To:	Kim Phillips <>
Cc:	Lennert Buytenhek <>,
Subject: Re: phylib usage

On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 16:42 -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:03:56 +0200
> Lennert Buytenhek <> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:20:52PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > 
> > > (note I'm coming from an embedded world here.)
> > 
> > Please read this:
> > 
> >
> Not sure how to interpret that.  My point was I don't see as much PHY variation in non-embedded applications.
> Kim

There may not be as much, but there definitely are still cases where
there are devices that may have one of three or four different PHYs.
I'm not in the embedded world, but while I know that there are
differences, it isn't THAT different that something as potentially
useful as PHY abstraction wouldn't be useful for regular PCI/USB network

Or are there too many cases where NIC x needs to do these fiddlings with
PHY y, where as NIC z has to do different fiddlings with PHY y?

Again, I don't have a lot of experience with Ethernet devices but in
looking at a lot of the different driver code, it looks like they all
fiddle with the PHYs in basically the same way, though some drivers do
more, some less.  Most likely due to lack of access to errata and such
or issues just not cropping up that need to be fixed.

David Hollis <>

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists