netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] net: mvmdio: add xmdio support

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: <20170608165546.GC20216@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 8 Jun 2017 18:55:46 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...e-electrons.com>,
        davem@...emloft.net, jason@...edaemon.net,
        gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com,
        sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com,
        thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        mw@...ihalf.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] net: mvmdio: add xmdio support

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:42:21AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 06/08/2017 02:26 AM, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > This patch adds the xMDIO interface support in the mvmdio driver. This
> > interface is used in Ethernet controllers on Marvell 370, 7k and 8k (as
> > of now). The xSMI interface supported by this driver complies with the
> > IEEE 802.3 clause 45 (while the SMI interface complies with the clause
> > 22). The xSMI interface is used by 10GbE devices.
> 
> In the previous version you were properly defining a new compatibles
> strings for xmdio, but now you don't and instead you runtime select the
> operations based on whether MII_ADDR_C45 is set in the register which is
> fine from a functional perspective.
> 
> If I get this right, the xMDIO controller is actually a superset of the
> MDIO controller and has an extra MVMDIO_XSMI_ADDR_REG register to
> preform C45 accesses?
> 
> If that is the case (and looking at patch 8 that seems to be the case),
> you probably still need to define a new compatible string for that
> block, because it has a different register layout than its predecessor.

Yes, i think you need the compatible string to return -EOPNOSUP when
somebody tries to do a C45 access on the older IP which only has C22.

	 Andrew