netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net: phy: marvell: Add errata section 5.1 for Alaska 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c8e782cb-49cc-e792-9573-8fd2e5515c50@denx.de>
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 13:21:19 +0200
From:   Stefan Roese <sr@...x.de>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Leszek Polak <lpolak@...i.de>,
        Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: phy: marvell: Add errata section 5.1 for Alaska
 PHY

Hi Paolo,

On 17.05.22 13:01, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, 2022-05-16 at 09:08 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
>> From: Leszek Polak <lpolak@...i.de>
>>
>> As per Errata Section 5.1, if EEE is intended to be used, some register
>> writes must be done once after every hardware reset. This patch now adds
>> the necessary register writes as listed in the Marvell errata.
>>
>> Without this fix we experience ethernet problems on some of our boards
>> equipped with a new version of this ethernet PHY (different supplier).
>>
>> The fix applies to Marvell Alaska 88E1510/88E1518/88E1512/88E1514
>> Rev. A0.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Leszek Polak <lpolak@...i.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <sr@...x.de>
>> Cc: Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
>> Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
>> Cc: Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
>> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> 
> It's not clear to me if you are targeting -net or net-next, could you
> please clarify? In case this is for -net, please add a suitable fixes
> tag, thanks!

Sorry for not being clear on this. net-next is good AFAICT.

Should I re-submit to net-next?

Thanks,
Stefan