netdev - Re: [v3 2/2] dsa: mv88e6xxx: make serdes SGMII/Fiber output amplitude configurable

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: <20211208164932.6ojxt64j3v34477k@skbuf>
Date:   Wed, 8 Dec 2021 18:49:32 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>
Cc:     Holger Brunck <holger.brunck@...achienergy.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [v3 2/2] dsa: mv88e6xxx: make serdes SGMII/Fiber output
 amplitude configurable

On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 06:41:31PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 05:21:04PM +0100, Marek Behún wrote:
> > Hello Vladimir,
> > > > > but the mv88e6xxx driver also drives switches that allow changing serdes
> > > > > modes. There does not need be dedicated TX amplitude register for each serdes
> > > > > mode, the point is that we may want to declare different amplitudes for
> > > > > different modes.
> > > > >
> > > > > So the question is: if we go with your binding proposal for the whole mv88e6xxx
> > > > > driver, and in the future someone will want to declare different amplitudes for
> > > > > different modes on another model, would he need to deprecate your binding or
> > > > > would it be easy to extend?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ok I see. So if I follow your proposal in my case it would be something like:
> > > > serdes-sgmii-tx-amplitude-millivolt to start with ?
> > > >
> > > > I can do that. Andrew what do you think?
> > >
> > > Or maybe two properties:
> > >   serdes-tx-amplitude-millivolt = <700 1000 1100>;
> > >   serdes-tx-amplitude-modes = "sgmii", "2500base-x", "10gbase-r";
> > > ?
> > >
> > > If
> > >   serdes-tx-amplitude-modes
> > > is omitted, then
> > >   serdes-tx-amplitude-millivolt
> > > should only contain one value, and this is used for all serdes modes.
> > >
> > > This would be compatible with your change. You only need to define the
> > > bidning for now, your code can stay the same - you don't need to add
> > > support for multiple values or for the second property now, it can be
> > > done later when needed. But the binding should be defined to support
> > > those different modes.
> >
> > Vladimir, can you send your thoughts about this proposal? We are trying
> > to propose binding for defining serdes TX amplitude.
> 
> I don't have any specific concern here. It sounds reasonable for
> different data rates to require different transmitter configurations.
> Having separate "serdes-tx-amplitude-millivolt" and "serdes-tx-amplitude-modes"
> properties sounds okay, although I think a prefix with "-names" at the
> end is more canonical ("pinctrl-names", "clock-names", "reg-names" etc),
> so maybe "serdes-tx-amplitude-millivolt-names"?
> Maybe we could name the first element "default", and just the others
> would be named after a phy-mode. This way, if a specific TX amplitude is
> found in the device tree for the currently operating PHY mode, it can be
> used, otherwise the default (first) amplitude can be used.

Also, maybe drop the "serdes-" prefix? The property will sit under a
SERDES lane node, so it would be a bit redundant?