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]

Message-ID: <fa729acf-33cd-4766-10a5-bdbd21f29262@cogentembedded.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 18:03:24 +0300
From:   Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To:     Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next] ravb: Avoid unsupported internal delay mode
 for R-Car E3/D3

Hello!

On 04/09/2019 01:45 PM, Simon Horman wrote:

>>>> @@ -1979,8 +1985,9 @@ static void ravb_set_delay_mode(struct net_device *ndev)
>>>>  	    priv->phy_interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_RXID)
>>>>  		set |= APSR_DM_RDM;
>>>>  
>>>> -	if (priv->phy_interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_ID ||
>>>> -	    priv->phy_interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_TXID)
>>>> +	if ((priv->phy_interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_ID ||
>>>> +	     priv->phy_interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_TXID) &&
>>>> +	    !soc_device_match(ravb_delay_mode_quirk_match))
>>>
>>>    But don't we need to error out of the probing as we can't set the delay mode
>>> requested?
>>
>> Yes, if we can, we should error out. It just depends on if there are
>> broken DT blobs out there. We recently had a lot of pain from broken
>> DT blobs using the at803x PHY and getting RGMII modes wrong. In the
>> long run, it is best to if DT, but i've no idea how many boards are
>> affected.
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> I suspect there are such blobs out there and I'm not sure
> what the fall-out may or may not be.

   You mean the out-of-tree blobs? Because I'm not seeing any in-kernel
breakage... 

MBR, Sergei