netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] ptp: ocp: add nvmem interface for accessing eeprom

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: <DC32C07D-52FC-437C-AE9A-FA03082E008B@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 04 Mar 2022 08:50:02 -0800
From:   "Jonathan Lemon" <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
To:     "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, richardcochran@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] ptp: ocp: add nvmem interface for accessing
 eeprom

On 4 Mar 2022, at 8:18, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Mar 2022 21:39:48 -0800 Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>> On 3 Mar 2022, at 21:01, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Thu,  3 Mar 2022 15:38:00 -0800 Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>>>> manufacturer
>>>
>>> The generic string is for manufacture, i.e. fab; that's different
>>> from manufacture*r* i.e. vendor. It's when you multi-source a single
>>> board design at multiple factories.
>>
>> The documentation seems unclear:
>>
>> board.manufacture
>> -----------------
>> An identifier of the company or the facility which produced the part.
>
> Yeah, so this is for standard NICs. Say you have a NIC made by
> Chelsio (just picking a random company that's unlikely to have its
> own fabs), the vendor is Chelsio but they will contract out building
> the boards to whatever contractors. The contractor just puts the board
> together and runs manufacturing tests, tho, no real IP work.
>
>> There isn’t a board.vendor (or manufacturer) in devlink.h.
>>
>> The board design is open source, there’s several variants of
>> the design being produced, so I’m looking for a simple way to
>> identify the design (other than the opaque board id)
>
> And all of them use Facebook PCI_ID, hm. But AFAIU the cards are not
> identical, right? Are they using the same exact board design or
> something derived from the reference board design that matches
> the OCP spec?

A reference design, apparently with optional features.


> And AFAIU the company delivering the card writes / assembles the
> firmware, you can't take FW load from company A and flash it onto
> company B's card, no?

Nope.  There are currently 3 designs, and 3 firmware variants.
I’m looking for a way to tell them apart, especially since the
firmware file must match the card.  Suggestions?

[root@...ecard net-next]# devlink dev info
pci/0000:02:00.0:
  driver ptp_ocp
  serial_number fc:c2:3d:2e:d7:c0
  versions:
      fixed:
        board.manufacture GOTHAM
        board.id RSH04940
      running:
        fw 21
pci/0000:65:00.0:
  driver ptp_ocp
  serial_number 4e:75:6d:00:00:00
  versions:
      fixed:
        board.manufacture O2S
        board.id R3006G000100
      running:
        fw 9
pci/0000:b3:00.0:
  driver ptp_ocp
  serial_number 3d:00:00:0e:37:73
  versions:
      fixed:
        board.manufacture CLS
        board.id R4006G000101
      running:
        fw 32773

—
Jonathan