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:   Sat, 18 May 2019 18:50:48 +0200
From:   Marek Vasut <>
To:     Andrew Lunn <>
Cc:, Florian Fainelli <>,
        Guenter Roeck <>,
        Heiner Kallweit <>,
        Jean Delvare <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] net: phy: tja11xx: Add TJA11xx PHY driver

On 5/18/19 4:14 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 01:51:23AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> Add driver for the NXP TJA1100 and TJA1101 PHYs. These PHYs are special
>> BroadRReach 100BaseT1 PHYs used in automotive.
> Hi Marek

Hello Andrew,

>> +	}, {
>> +		.name		= "NXP TJA1101",
>> +		.features       = PHY_BASIC_T1_FEATURES,
> One thing i would like to do before this patch goes in is define
> ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100baseT1_Full_BIT in ethtool.h, and use it here.
> We could not do it earlier because were ran out of bits. But with
> PHYLIB now using bitmaps, rather than u32, we can.
> Once net-next reopens i will submit a patch adding it.

I can understand blocking patches from being applied if they have review
problems or need to be updated on some existing or even posted feature.
But blocking a patch because some future yet-to-be-developed patch is a
bit odd.

Besides, this sounds more like a cleanup which can very well be done
later. It will surely be done for the other PHY drivers too.

> I also see in the data sheet we should be able to correct detect its
> features using register 15. So we should extend
> genphy_read_abilities().

Which bits do you refer to ?

Anyway, this is something which can be done in a subsequent patch, I
don't see a reason for blocking hardware enablement because of this.

> That will allow us to avoid changing
> PHY_BASIC_T1_FEATURES and possibly breaking backwards compatibility of
> other T1 PHY which currently say they are plain 100BaseT.

What sort of backward compatibility ?

Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Powered by blists - more mailing lists