netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/4] net: phy: start state machine in phy

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 23 Jan 2019 02:50:33 +0000
From:   "S-k, Shyam-sundar" <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>
To:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/4] net: phy: start state machine in
 phy_start only

Hi Heiner

On 1/23/2019 12:39 AM, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 22.01.2019 15:46, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>> On 1/21/19 12:36 PM, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>> On 21.01.2019 17:35, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 10:01:15AM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>>>> The state machine is a no-op before phy_start() has been called.
>>>>> Therefore let's enable it in phy_start() only. In phy_start()
>>>>> let's call phy_start_machine() instead of phy_trigger_machine().
>>>>> phy_start_machine is an alias for phy_trigger_machine but it makes
>>>>> clearer that we start the state machine here instead of just
>>>>> triggering a run.
>>>> Hi Heiner
>>>>
>>>> Documentation/networking/phy.txt has a section "Doing it all yourself"
>>>> It would be good to review that, and make sure that documentation is
>>>> still valid. I'm not sure any MAC driver actually does do it all
>>>> itself. So it might be worth reviewing the whole document and making
>>>> updates to remove parts of the text.
>>>>
>>> Right. I figured out that I have update phy.txt anyway because I
>>> recently removed phy_stop_interrupts which is referenced in the
>>> documentation. OK if we leave the patch series as is and I submit
>>> the documentation update as a separate patch?
>> I think you need to be careful here and not break what is allowed in the
>> "Doing it all yourself" section. The amd-xgbe driver makes use of this
>> functionality and does not use phy_start()/phy_stop(). Specifically, it
>> does:
>>   get_phy_device();
>>   phy_device_register();
>>   phy_attach_direct();
>>
>> At which point it uses phy_start_aneg(), phy_read(), phy_write(),
>> phy_read_status() and phy_aneg_done().
>>
> Thanks for the hint, Tom. I *think* the changes should be safe.
> However, if AMD has a regression test suite I'd appreciate if you could
> test the changes upfront or once they reach net-next.
>
Can you please cc: on your changes so you I can verify them before they get pushed upstream?