netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/6] of: add API for changing parameters of fixed link

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]

Date:	Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:04:05 +0300
From:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
To:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
CC:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] of: add API for changing parameters of fixed link

30.03.2015 19:06, Florian Fainelli пишет:
> So yes, it is a bug in the sense that it is not transparently handled,
> but at the same time, the PHY library has no way to know whether a
> fixed_link_update callback is being invoked since it is not poking
> into the fixed PHY driver.
Maybe then it would be better to have an API in fixed_phy.c itself
to change the state? No one will then care about the callback at all.
For example, currently in my new patch, when I receive the interrupt
about phy status change, I can't do anything: I can't change the state
or force the phylib to do a callback right now. So, instead of changing
the state upon interrupt, I need instead to ask HW the current state on
every poll, which is likely not effective in some regards. By having the
API that would be solved, as well as the detached device problem.

>> @@ -304,6 +310,7 @@ struct mvneta_port {
>>         unsigned int link;
>>         unsigned int duplex;
>>         unsigned int speed;
>> +       int inband_status;
> Since you are essentially using this variable as a boolean to indicate
> whether in-band status should be queried or not, maybe you should name
> that "needs_inband_status" or "wants_inband_status", inband_status
That's fine, will go for "use_inband_status:1" tomorrow.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html