netdev - Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next v1] net: phy: tja11xx: add cable-test support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200514172702.pra445q73dcjdnjc@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Thu, 14 May 2020 19:27:02 +0200
From:   Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Christian Herber <christian.herber@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        David Jander <david@...tonic.nl>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next v1] net: phy: tja11xx: add cable-test
 support

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 06:01:52PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 03:47:16PM +0000, Christian Herber wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> > 
> > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 03:39:00PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > >> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 02:09:59PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > >>  ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_RESULT_CODE_ACTIVE_PARTNER - the link partner is active.
> > >>
> > >>      The TJA1102 is able to detect it if partner link is master.
> > >>
> > > master is not a cable diagnostics issue. This is a configuration
> > > issue.
> > 
> 
> > Master is very relevant for cable diagnostics, as a cable
> > measurement should not be done with an active link partner on the
> > other end (i.e. a PHY in master mode trying to train the link).
> 
> > So if the measurement detects an active link partner disturbing the
> > measurement, it is important to report this to the user.
> 
> So with 'normal' PHYs, we use autoneg to make the link go quiet. But
> you don't have autoneg.
> 
> If there is no way to force the link quiet, then
> ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_RESULT_CODE_ACTIVE_PARTNER makes sense. But we need to
> keep the meaning generic. I don't want it to mean a T1 PHY with an
> active master peer. It should be usable for any reason the link cannot
> be made to go quiet.

It looks for me, like AT803X_CDT_STATUS_STAT_FAIL has the same reason as
ACTIVE PERTNER (Master) on TJA11xx.

What kind of meaning, naming would be generic?


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)