netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 netdev] net: phy: marvell: Limit errata to 88m1101

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:   Tue, 23 May 2017 07:00:10 -0700
From:   Daniel Walker <danielwa@...co.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Harini Katakam <harini.katakam@...inx.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 netdev] net: phy: marvell: Limit errata to 88m1101

On 05/22/2017 04:28 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> The 88m1101 has an errata when configuring autoneg. However, it was
> being applied to many other Marvell PHYs as well. Limit its scope to
> just the 88m1101.
>
> Fixes: 76884679c644 ("phylib: Add support for Marvell 88e1111S and 88e1145")
> Reported-by: Daniel Walker <danielwa@...co.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> ---
>
> v2:
> 	Forgot netdev
>
>   drivers/net/phy/marvell.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>   1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/marvell.c b/drivers/net/phy/marvell.c
> index 88cd97b44ba6..77221d3f254f 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/phy/marvell.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/marvell.c
> @@ -267,35 +267,6 @@ static int marvell_config_aneg(struct phy_device *phydev)
>   {
>   	int err;
>   
> -	/* The Marvell PHY has an errata which requires
> -	 * that certain registers get written in order
> -	 * to restart autonegotiation
> -	 */
> -	err = phy_write(phydev, MII_BMCR, BMCR_RESET);
> -

It looks fine to me, but I'm not sure if this line BMCR_RESET was part 
of the errata or the comment. I guess it's OK to assume it tho.

Danie.