netdev - Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH] net: stmmac: do not poke MAC_CTRL

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]

Date:   Tue, 13 Sep 2022 09:55:50 +0200
From:   Erico Nunes <nunes.erico@...il.com>
To:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc:     Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>, Da Xue <da@...sconfused.com>,
        Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        Vyacheslav <adeep@...ina.in>, Qi Duan <qi.duan@...ogic.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH] net: stmmac: do not poke MAC_CTRL_REG twice on
 link up

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 8:25 PM Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 29.08.2022 12:29, Erico Nunes wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 12:02 PM Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Jerome, can you confirm that after this commit the following is no longer needed?
> >>>>> 2c87c6f9fbdd ("net: phy: meson-gxl: improve link-up behavior")
> >>
> >> This never had any meaningful impact for me. I have already reverted it
> >> for testing.
> >>
> >> I'm all for reverting it
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then I'd revert it, referencing the successor workaround / fix in stmmac.
> > If we are considering to revert that, I would like to trigger some
> > tests on my S805X CI board farm as well, to ensure it won't regress
> > later. That was one of the original reasons for that patch.
> >
> > Since there are some more changes referenced in this thread, can
> > someone clarify what is the desired state to test? Just revert
> > 2c87c6f9fbdd on top of linux-next, or also apply some other patch?
>
> Yes, just revert 2c87c6f9fbdd on top of linux-next.

I see that the revert is already applied.
For what it's worth I ran have been running some test jobs on my CI
farm with linux-next and the patch reverted and haven't reproduced the
bug that originally prompted 2c87c6f9fbdd so far. So it seems to me
that that patch is indeed no longer needed.

Thanks

Erico