[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 00:34:15 +0000
From: "Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
To: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@...cle.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
Subject: RE: [Intel-wired-lan] Possible read-modify-write bug in ixgbe x550
phy setup
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@...osl.org] On
>Behalf Of Shannon Nelson
>Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 3:46 PM
>To: Tantilov, Emil S <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
>Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
>Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] Possible read-modify-write bug in ixgbe x550
>phy setup
>
>Hi Emil,
>
>I was looking through a set of ixgbe patches and came across this commit
>
> commit 410a494902777c11f95031d9ed757d7f8f09c5c6
> ixgbe: add write flush when configuring CS4223/7
>
>and am wondering about the setting of reg_phy_ext in the middle of
>ixgbe_setup_mac_link_sfp_x550a(). It looks like it is read from the
>PHY, modified to remove the CX1 and SR mode bits, but then those bits
>are overwritten in the "if (setup_linear)" block immediately following,
>and that is what gets written back out.
Hi Shannon,
This is pretty standard clear before set, so you're right that it would
make more sense to have |= rather than =.
Are you seeing an issue, or did you catch this via code inspection?
Thanks,
Emil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists