netdev - Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next] ravb: Avoid unsupported internal delay mode for R-Car E3/D3

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:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:02:00 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
        Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next] ravb: Avoid unsupported internal delay mode
 for R-Car E3/D3

On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 01:12:52PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> ^
> > > > +static const struct soc_device_attribute ravb_delay_mode_quirk_match[] = {
> > > > +	{ .soc_id = "r8a77990", .revision = "ES1.*" },
> > > > +	{ .soc_id = "r8a77995", .revision = "ES1.*" },
> > > > +	{ /* sentinel */ }
> > > > +};
> > > 
> > > I might have missed it but is there a plan to fix this in later
> > > revisions of D3/E3? I was under the impression that it is not and then
> > > we could base it on compatible rather than soc_device_match?
> > 
> > I am not aware of any such plan (or the absence of such a plan).
> > 
> > I was unsure weather to go with the compat approach of the quirk approach.
> > In the end I went with the quirk approach as it seems simpler. But
> > I'm happy to re-arrange things.
> 
> I see. Well, I don't care super much. The tiny drawback here is that we
> will have a potentially broken D3/E3 ES2.0, if they have not fixed TXID
> there. Then we need to update the above pattern. So, revision = "*" (or
> the compatible approach) might be a tad better. Then we "only" have 1G
> disabled for no reason until we whitelist it.

I do think that the quirk approach is cleaner, So all things being equal
I'd slightly prefer to stick with that approach. Shall I drop
the .revision portion?