netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: phy: broadcom: 1588 support on bcm54210pe

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: <FCDBE44F-57EB-420E-844B-29BBB37EA2C6@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:20:07 -0700
From:   Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
To:     Lasse Johnsen <lasse@...ebeat.app>
Cc:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Gordon Hollingworth <gordon@...pberrypi.com>,
        Ahmad Byagowi <clk@...com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: phy: broadcom: 1588 support on bcm54210pe

On 22 Apr 2022, at 11:11, Lasse Johnsen wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
>
> I suspect you make the conflation I also made when I started working on this PHY driver. Broadcom has a number of different, nearly identical chips. The BCM54210, the BCM54210E, the BCM54210PE, the BCM54210S and the BCM54210SE.
>
> It’s hard to imagine, but only the BCM54210PE is a first generation PHY and the BCM54210 (and others) are second generation. I have to be mighty careful not to breach my NDA, but I can furnish you with these quotes directly from the Broadcom engineers I worked with during the development:
>
> 24 March:
>
> "The BCM54210PE is the first-gen 40-nm GPHY, but the BCM54210 is the second-gen 40-nm GPHY.”
>
> "The 1588 Inband function only applied to BCM54210 or later PHYs. It doesn't be supported in the BCM54210PE”
>
> So, I quite agree with you that in-band would be preferable (subject to the issue with hawking the reserved field used in 1588-2019 I described in my note to Richard), but I am convinced that it is not supported in the BCM54210PE. Indeed if you are looking at a document describing features based on the RDB register access method it is not supported by the BCM54210PE.

Uhm, I have inbound timestamps working for RX on an RPI CM4.
—
Jonathan