netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 3/3] net: phy: allow EEE with SGMII interface modes

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: <705b10f9-6a0c-3a35-ddff-04b75c6f80ec@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:48:26 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 3/3] net: phy: allow EEE with SGMII interface modes

On 03/27/2017 12:47 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:03:12AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 03/27/2017 10:00 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:47:31AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>> On 03/27/2017 02:59 AM, Russell King wrote:
>>>>> As EEE is able to work in SGMII mode as well, add it to the list of
>>>>> permissable EEE modes that phy_init_eee() will accept.  This is
>>>>> necessary so that EEE can work with an 88E1512 connected in SGMII mode.
>>>>
>>>> As you mention in your cover letter, we should probably reverse this
>>>> test and make it reject modes where EEE has no chance of being supported
>>>> at all.
>>>
>>> Want me to re-spin?  Any thought on which interface modes we should
>>> explicitly exclude?
>>
>> It actually sounds like we should just kill the check entirely, it does
>> not appear that any of the interface mode would not fundamentally be
>> able to support EEE, because the "lowest" mode we support is MII, and
>> even there it's quite possible to support EEE.
> 
> Right, so it looks like the test reduces down to just:
> 
> 	if (phydev->duplex == DUPLEX_FULL) {
> 
> agreed?

Yes indeed. Thanks!
-- 
Florian