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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 20:25:29 +0100 From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk> Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] net: phy: marvell10g: add SFP+ support > The answer is... it depends. Hi Russell One issue we have had with phylink is people using the interfaces wrongly. When asking this question, i was thinking about documentation. Your answer suggests this method is not simply about the validation you are doing here, it could also be about configuration of the PHY to fit the module. Maybe it would be good to add documentation somewhere about the range of things this call can do? > So, this patch reflects what can be done with the SFP+ slots on > Macchiatobin boards today. This all sounds very hardware dependent. So we are going to need some more DT properties i guess. Have you thought about this? Maybe we need to add compatibles sff,sfp+ and sff,sff+ ? Indicate the board is capable of the higher speeds? And when sfp+/sff+ is used, maybe a boolean to indicate it is also sff/sfp compatible? sfp_select_interface() can then look at these properties and return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA if the board is not capable of supporting the module? Would it even make sense to make the PHY interface more like the MAC interface? A validate function to indicate what it is capable of? A configure function to configure its mode towards the SFP? Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists