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
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 25 May 2020 09:25:10 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, f.fainelli@...il.com, hkallweit1@...il.com,
        madalin.bucur@....nxp.com, calvin.johnson@....nxp.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 08/11] net: phy: Allow mdio buses to auto-probe c45 devices

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:28:52PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 5/24/20 9:44 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > +++ b/include/linux/phy.h
> > > @@ -275,6 +275,11 @@ struct mii_bus {
> > >   	int reset_delay_us;
> > >   	/* RESET GPIO descriptor pointer */
> > >   	struct gpio_desc *reset_gpiod;
> > > +	/* bus capabilities, used for probing */
> > > +	enum {
> > > +		MDIOBUS_C22_ONLY = 0,
> > > +		MDIOBUS_C45_FIRST,
> > > +	} probe_capabilities;
> > >   };
> > 
> > 
> > I'm not so keen on _FIRST. It suggest _LAST would also be valid.  But
> > that then suggests this is not a bus property, but a PHY property, and
> > some PHYs might need _FIRST and other phys need _LAST, and then you
> > have a bus which has both sorts of PHY on it, and you have a problem.
> > 
> > So i think it would be better to have
> > 
> > 	enum {
> > 		MDIOBUS_UNKNOWN = 0,
> > 		MDIOBUS_C22,
> > 		MDIOBUS_C45,
> > 		MDIOBUS_C45_C22,
> > 	} bus_capabilities;
> > 
> > Describe just what the bus master can support.
> 
> Yes, the naming is reasonable and I will update it in the next patch. I went
> around a bit myself with this naming early on, and the problem I saw was
> that a C45 capable master, can have C45 electrical phy's that only respond
> to c22 requests (AFAIK).

If you have a master that can only generate clause 45 cycles, and
someone is daft enough to connect a clause 22 only PHY to it, the
result is hardware that doesn't work - there's no getting around
that.  The MDIO interface can't generate the appropriate cycles to
access the clause 22 PHY.  So, this is not something we need care
about.

> So the MDIOBUS_C45 (I think I was calling it
> C45_ONLY) is an invalid selection. Not, that it wouldn't be helpful to have
> a C45_ONLY case, but that the assumption is that you wouldn't try and probe
> c22 registers, which I thought was a mistake.

MDIOBUS_C45 means "I can generate clause 45 cycles".
MDIOBUS_C22 means "I can generate clause 22 cycles".
MDIOBUS_C45_C22 means "I can generate both clause 45 and clause 22
cycles."

Notice carefully the values these end up with - MDIOBUS_C22 = BIT(0),
MDIOBUS_C45 = BIT(1), MDIOBUS_C45_C22 = BIT(0) | BIT(1).  I suspect
that was no coincidence in Andrew's suggestion.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC for 0.8m (est. 1762m) line in suburbia: sync at 13.1Mbps down 424kbps up

Powered by blists - more mailing lists