netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/5] net: phy: marvell: fix HWMON enable register for 6390

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: <YHWp3UToOvq8k3wJ@lunn.ch>
Date:   Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:25:33 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>, kuba@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/5] net: phy: marvell: fix HWMON enable
 register for 6390

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 09:55:35AM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> Register 27_6.15:14 has the following description in 88E6393X
> documentation:
>   Temperature Sensor Enable
>     0x0 - Sample every 1s
>     0x1 - Sense rate decided by bits 10:8 of this register
>     0x2 - Use 26_6.5 (One shot Temperature Sample) to enable
>     0x3 - Disable
> 
> This is compatible with how the 6390 code uses this register currently,
> but the 6390 code handles it as two 1-bit registers (somewhat), instead
> of one register with 4 possible values.
> 
> Rename this register and define all 4 values according to 6393X
> documentation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>
> ---
>  drivers/net/phy/marvell.c | 19 +++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/marvell.c b/drivers/net/phy/marvell.c
> index 63788d5c13eb..bae2a225b550 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/phy/marvell.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/marvell.c
> @@ -113,11 +113,11 @@
>  #define MII_88E1540_COPPER_CTRL3_FAST_LINK_DOWN		BIT(9)
>  
>  #define MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST		0x1b
> -#define MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_SAMPLE_1S		0
> -#define MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_SAMPLE_10MS	BIT(14)
> -#define MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_SAMPLE_DISABLE	BIT(15)
> -#define MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_SAMPLE_ENABLE	0
> -#define MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_SAMPLE_MASK	(0x3 << 14)
> +#define MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_TEMP_SENSOR_ENABLE_SAMPLE_1S	(0x0 << 14)
> +#define MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_TEMP_SENSOR_ENABLE		(0x1 << 14)
> +#define MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_TEMP_SENSOR_ENABLE_ONESHOT	(0x2 << 14)
> +#define MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_TEMP_SENSOR_DISABLE		(0x3 << 14)
> +#define MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_TEMP_SENSOR_MASK			(0x3 << 14)
>  
>  #define MII_88E6390_TEMP_SENSOR		0x1c
>  #define MII_88E6390_TEMP_SENSOR_MASK	0xff
> @@ -2352,9 +2352,8 @@ static int m88e6390_get_temp(struct phy_device *phydev, long *temp)
>  	if (ret < 0)
>  		goto error;
>  
> -	ret = ret & ~MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_SAMPLE_MASK;
> -	ret |= MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_SAMPLE_ENABLE |
> -		MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_SAMPLE_1S;
> +	ret = ret & ~MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_TEMP_SENSOR_MASK;
> +	ret |= MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_TEMP_SENSOR_ENABLE_SAMPLE_1S;

So this is identical

>  
>  	ret = __phy_write(phydev, MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST, ret);
>  	if (ret < 0)
> @@ -2381,8 +2380,8 @@ static int m88e6390_get_temp(struct phy_device *phydev, long *temp)
>  	if (ret < 0)
>  		goto error;
>  
> -	ret = ret & ~MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_SAMPLE_MASK;
> -	ret |= MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_SAMPLE_DISABLE;
> +	ret = ret & ~MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_TEMP_SENSOR_MASK;
> +	ret |= MII_88E6390_MISC_TEST_TEMP_SENSOR_DISABLE;

And here we have gone from 0x2 to 0x3?

Have you checked the 6390 datasheet for this?

I will test these patches later.

     Andrew