netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: phy: marvell: fix detection of PHY on Topaz switches

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: <20210412163829.kp7feb3yhzymukg2@pali>
Date:   Mon, 12 Apr 2021 18:38:29 +0200
From:   Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: marvell: fix detection of PHY on Topaz switches

On Monday 12 April 2021 18:12:35 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 05:52:39PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Monday 12 April 2021 17:32:33 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > Anyway, now I'm looking at phy/marvell.c driver again and it supports
> > > > only 88E6341 and 88E6390 families from whole 88E63xxx range.
> > > > 
> > > > So do we need to define for now table for more than
> > > > MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6341 and MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6390 entries?
> > > 
> > > Probably not. I've no idea if the 6393 has an ID, so to be safe you
> > > should add that. Assuming it has a family of its own.
> > 
> > So what about just?
> > 
> > 	if (reg == MII_PHYSID2 && !(val & 0x3f0)) {
> > 		if (chip->info->family == MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6341)
> > 			val |= MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6341 >> 4;
> > 		else if (chip->info->family == MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6390)
> > 			val |= MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6390 >> 4;
> > 	}
> 
> As i said, i expect the 6393 also has no ID. And i recently found out
> Marvell have some automotive switches, 88Q5xxx which are actually
> based around the same IP and could be added to this driver. They also
> might not have an ID. I suspect this list is going to get longer, so
> having it table driven will make that simpler, less error prone.
> 
>      Andrew

Ok, I will use table but I fill it only with Topaz (6341) and Peridot
(6390) which was there before as I do not have 6393 switch for testing.

If you or anybody else has 6393 unit for testing, please extend then
table.