netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 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: <20190411084026.5crg7yiphm6zsk5s@verge.net.au>
Date:   Thu, 11 Apr 2019 10:40:27 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:     Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ravb: Avoid unsupported internal delay mode
 for R-Car E3/D3

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 08:17:16PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 04/10/2019 07:19 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 
> >> According to the R-Car Gen3 Hardware Manual Rev 1.50 of Nov 30, 2018, the
> >> TX clock internal delay mode isn't supported on R-Car E3 (r8a77990) or D3
> >> (r8a77995). And by extension it is also not supported by RZ/G2E (r9a774c0).
> >>
> >> This matches all ES versions of the affected SoCs as it is
> >> not clear if this problem will be resolved in newer chips.
> >> This can be revisited, as necessary.
> >>
> >> This patch does not error-out if PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_ID or
> >> PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_TXID are used on SoCs where TX clock delay
> >> mode is not supported as there is a risk of introducing a regression
> >> when used in conjunction with older DT blobs present in the field.
> > 
> > Hi Simon
> > 
> > I think it should at least WARN_ON(). Such blobs are broken, even if
> > they do kind of work.
> 
>    Good idea! Simon, third time's a charm? :-)

Sure, can do.

> 
> >      Andrew
> 
> MBR, Sergei
>