netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: smsc911x: If PHY doesn't have an interrupt then POLL

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: <576079BC.8010802@arm.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:40:12 -0500
From:	Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	steve.glendinning@...well.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: smsc911x: If PHY doesn't have an interrupt then POLL

On 06/14/2016 04:34 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 12:29 AM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>
>>>> If the interrupt configuration isn't set and we are using the
>>>
>>>     It's never set, judging by the driver code.
>>>
>>>> internal phy, then we need to poll the phy to reliably detect
>>>> phy state changes.
>>>
>>>     What address your internal PHY is at? Mine is at 1, and things seem
>>> to work reliably after probing:
>>>
>>> SMSC LAN8700 18000000.etherne:01: attached PHY driver [SMSC LAN8700]
>>> (mii_bus:phy_addr=18000000.etherne:01, irq=-1)
>>>
>>>     I'm using the device tree on my board.
>>
>> Ok, I'm back on the machine, this is what mine says without that patch.
>>
>>
>>
>> SMSC LAN911x Internal PHY 18000000.etherne:01: attached PHY driver [SMSC
>> LAN911x Internal PHY] (mii_bus:phy_addr=18000000.etherne:01, irq=0)
>
>     Hum, that's unexpected... things are probably more complex that I
> thought. Do you have extra patches to this driver by changce?

No, the initial kernel where the problem was discovered is
4.5.2-301.fc24.aarch64, but I built a mainline 4.6, and modprobed the 
driver with the same effect.


Although, now that I'm looking closer at phy_irq, I'm curious how it 
works for anyone else...