netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/2] net: phy: tja11xx: add support for master-slave configuration

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: <20200429182053.GM30459@lunn.ch>
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:20:53 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        David Jander <david@...tonic.nl>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, mkl@...gutronix.de,
        Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
        Christian Herber <christian.herber@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/2] net: phy: tja11xx: add support for
 master-slave configuration

> +static int tja11xx_config_aneg(struct phy_device *phydev)
> +{
> +	u16 ctl = 0;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	switch (phydev->master_slave_set) {
> +	case PORT_MODE_CFG_MASTER_FORCE:
> +	case PORT_MODE_CFG_MASTER_PREFERRED:
> +		ctl |= MII_CFG1_MASTER_SLAVE;
> +		break;
> +	case PORT_MODE_CFG_SLAVE_FORCE:
> +	case PORT_MODE_CFG_SLAVE_PREFERRED:
> +		break;
> +	case PORT_MODE_CFG_UNKNOWN:
> +		return 0;
> +	default:
> +		phydev_warn(phydev, "Unsupported Master/Slave mode\n");
> +		return -ENOTSUPP;
> +	}

Does the hardware actually support PORT_MODE_CFG_SLAVE_PREFERRED and
PORT_MODE_CFG_MASTER_PREFERRED? I thought that required autoneg, which
this PHY does not support? So i would of expected these two values to
return ENOTSUPP?

       Andrew