netdev - Re: Re: signal quality and cable diagnostic

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: <20200511195435.GF413878@lunn.ch>
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