netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: switch drivers to use dynamic feature detection

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: <3bc293a8-5966-fb40-e0b1-636f3a3dfe77@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 20:45:45 +0200
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: switch drivers to use dynamic feature
 detection

On 08.04.2019 20:12, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> Splitting the series and waiting for a Tested-by, as proposed by Richard,
>> may be problematic because most PHY drivers don't have a dedicated
>> maintainer, and we lack the hardware to test.
> 
> Well, we could split out those we know are likely to get tested.  I
> have a number of boards with Marvell devices i can test. Florian has
> Broadcom boards. I also have a couple of boards with Micrel KSZ8041,
> which would be interesting because they are Fast Ethernet. Bootlin can
> test some of the mscc PHYs.
> 
Great. Could you also test based on the series and the provide a
Tested-by for the PHY's which have been tested? Even if I split out
let's say the Marvell PHY driver, most likely just few of all the
supported Marvell PHY's can be tested.

> We also might want to get some targeted testing. The microchip_t1.c
> could be interesting, since it is a T1 device. There was another T1
> added in the last year, but i forget which.
> 
The T1 PHY driver isn't included in this series. It uses another
feature constant: PHY_BASIC_T1_FEATURES

> Just doing this testing might give us an idea if we really should
> expect problems.
> 
Sure. I tested and applied this change to the Realtek PHY driver
already.

>       Andrew
> 
Heiner