netdev - Re: PHY firmware update method

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: <YzWPXcf8kXrd73PC@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:28:13 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kuba@...nel.org
Subject: Re: PHY firmware update method

> >devlink has become the standard way for upgrading firmware on complex
> >network devices, like NICs and TOR switches. That is probably a good
> >solution here. The problem is, what devlink instance to use. Only a
> >few MAC drivers are using devlink, so it is unlikely the MAC driver
> >the PHY is attached to has a devlink instance. Do we create a devlink
> >instance for the PHY?
> 
> Ccing Jakub. I don't think it is good idea to create a devlink instance
> per-PHY. However, on the other hand, we have a devlink instance per
> devlink linecard now. The devlink linecard however has devlink
> representation, which PHY does not have.
> 
> Perhaps now is the time to dust-off my devlink components implementation
> and use it for PHYs? IDF. Jakub, WDYT.

If we want to make the PHY a component of an existing devlink for a
MAC, we somehow have to find that devlink instance. A PHY is probably
a property of a port, so we can call netdev_to_devlink_port(), which
gives us a way into devlink.

However, the majority of MAC drivers don't have a devlink
instance. What do we do then? Have phylib create the devlink instance
for the MAC driver? That seems very wrong.

Which is why i was thinking the PHY should have its own devlink
instance.

Or we do firmware upgrade some other way.

	Andrew