netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: microchip_t1: add cable test support for lan87xx phy

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CH0PR11MB5561557053129AC2BA1E5AFF8E859@CH0PR11MB5561.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:54:49 +0000
From:   <Yuiko.Oshino@...rochip.com>
To:     <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <Nisar.Sayed@...rochip.com>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: microchip_t1: add cable test support
 for lan87xx phy



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 10:47 AM
>To: Yuiko Oshino - C18177 <Yuiko.Oshino@...rochip.com>
>Cc: davem@...emloft.net; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Nisar Sayed - I17970
><Nisar.Sayed@...rochip.com>; UNGLinuxDriver
><UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: microchip_t1: add cable test support for
>lan87xx phy
>
>EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
>content is safe
>
>> >> +     /* start cable diag */
>> >> +     /* check if part is alive - if not, return diagnostic error */
>> >> +     rc = access_ereg(phydev, PHYACC_ATTR_MODE_READ,
>> >PHYACC_ATTR_BANK_SMI,
>> >> +                      0x00, 0);
>> >> +     if (rc < 0)
>> >> +             return rc;
>> >> +
>> >> +     if (rc != 0x2100)
>> >> +             return -ENODEV;
>> >
>> >What does this actually mean? Would -EOPNOTSUPP be better?
>>
>> This register should return the value of 0x2100. So if the return value is different,
>then I assume there is no device.
>
>If the device does not exist, can we have go this far? Would probe of the PHY
>failed? Or are you talking about a device within a device? Is cable test
>implemented using an optional component?
>
>      Andrew

You are right.
I will remove the two lines.
Thank you.
Yuiko