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:   Wed, 15 Jul 2020 20:38:43 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <>
To:     Russell King <>
Cc:     Richard Cochran <>,
        Florian Fainelli <>,
        Heiner Kallweit <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: phy: add Marvell PHY PTP support

> Getting the Kconfig for this correct has been a struggle - particularly
> the combination where PTP support is modular.  It's rather odd to have
> the Marvell PTP support asked before the Marvell PHY support.  I
> couldn't work out any other reasonable way to ensure that we always
> have a valid configuration, without leading to stupidities such as
> having the PTP and Marvell PTP support modular, but non-functional
> because Marvell PHY is built-in.

Hi Russell

How much object code is this adding? All the other PHYs which support
PTP just make it part of the PHY driver, not a standalone module. That
i guess simplifies the conditions. 

Looking at DSDT, it lists

        case MAD_88E1340S:
        case MAD_88E1340:
        case MAD_88E1340M:
        case MAD_SWG65G : 
	case MAD_88E151x:



	case MAD_88E1548
        case MAD_88E1680:
        case MAD_88E1680M:


So maybe we can wire this up to a few more PHYs to 'lower' the
overhead a bit?

> It seems that the Marvell PHY PTP is very similar to that found in
> their DSA chips, which suggests maybe we should share the code, but
> different access methods would be required.

That makes the Kconfig even more complex :-(


Powered by blists - more mailing lists