[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yw1xblb2fbrg.fsf@mansr.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:19:15 +0100
From: Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
To: Andre Edich <andre.edich@...rochip.com>
Cc: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
<Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: lan87xx: fix access to wrong
register of LAN87xx
Andre Edich <andre.edich@...rochip.com> writes:
> The function lan87xx_config_aneg_ext was introduced to configure
> LAN95xxA but as well writes to undocumented register of LAN87xx.
> This fix prevents that access.
>
> The function lan87xx_config_aneg_ext gets more suitable for the new
> behavior name.
>
> Reported-by: Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
> Fixes: 05b35e7eb9a1 ("smsc95xx: add phylib support")
> Signed-off-by: Andre Edich <andre.edich@...rochip.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/phy/smsc.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/smsc.c b/drivers/net/phy/smsc.c
> index ddb78fb4d6dc..d8cac02a79b9 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/phy/smsc.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/smsc.c
> @@ -185,10 +185,13 @@ static int lan87xx_config_aneg(struct phy_device *phydev)
> return genphy_config_aneg(phydev);
> }
>
> -static int lan87xx_config_aneg_ext(struct phy_device *phydev)
> +static int lan95xx_config_aneg_ext(struct phy_device *phydev)
> {
> int rc;
>
> + if (phydev->phy_id != 0x0007c0f0) /* not (LAN9500A or LAN9505A) */
> + return lan87xx_config_aneg(phydev);
> +
> /* Extend Manual AutoMDIX timer */
> rc = phy_read(phydev, PHY_EDPD_CONFIG);
> if (rc < 0)
> @@ -441,7 +444,7 @@ static struct phy_driver smsc_phy_driver[] = {
> .read_status = lan87xx_read_status,
> .config_init = smsc_phy_config_init,
> .soft_reset = smsc_phy_reset,
> - .config_aneg = lan87xx_config_aneg_ext,
> + .config_aneg = lan95xx_config_aneg_ext,
>
> /* IRQ related */
> .config_intr = smsc_phy_config_intr,
> --
This seems to differentiate based on the "revision" field of the ID
register. Can we be certain that a future update of chip won't break
this assumption?
--
Måns Rullgård
Powered by blists - more mailing lists