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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 21:54:35 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> To: Christian Herber <christian.herber@....com> Cc: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>, "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" <kernel@...gutronix.de>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "mkl@...gutronix.de" <mkl@...gutronix.de>, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de> Subject: Re: Re: signal quality and cable diagnostic On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 07:32:05PM +0000, Christian Herber wrote: > On May 11, 2020 4:33:53 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote: > > > > Are the classes part of the Open Alliance specification? Ideally we > > want to report something standardized, not something proprietary to > > NXP. > > > > Andrew > > Hi Andrew, > > Such mechanisms are standardized and supported by pretty much all > devices in the market. The Open Alliance specification is publicly > available here: > http://www.opensig.org/download/document/218/Advanced_PHY_features_for_automotive_Ethernet_V1.0.pdf > > As the specification is newer than the 100BASE-T1 spec, do not > expect first generation devices to follow the register definitions > as per Open Alliance. But for future devices, also registers should > be same across different vendors. Hi Christian Since we are talking about a kernel/user API definition here, i don't care about the exact registers. What is important is the naming/representation of the information. It seems like NXP uses Class A - Class H, where as the standard calls them SQI=0 - SQI=7. So we should name the KAPI based on the standard, not what NXP calls them. Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists