| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <DM6PR11MB465713F87C83A9BDAC5412FA9BFC9@DM6PR11MB4657.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 14:17:18 +0000
From: "Kubalewski, Arkadiusz" <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>
To: Maciek Machnikowski <maciek@...hnikowski.net>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
'Vadim Fedorenko' <vfedorenko@...ek.ru>,
'Jonathan Lemon' <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
'Paolo Abeni' <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v4 0/4] Create common DPLL/clock configuration API
>From: Maciek Machnikowski <maciek@...hnikowski.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 3:59 PM
>To: Kubalewski, Arkadiusz <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>; Jiri Pirko
><jiri@...nulli.us>
>
>On 1/10/2023 11:54 AM, Kubalewski, Arkadiusz wrote:
>>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>>> Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 5:30 PM
>>>>
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> We have been trying to figure out feasibility of new approach proposed
>on
>>> our
>>>> latest meeting - to have a single object which encapsulates multiple
>>> DPLLs.
>>>>
>>>> Please consider following example:
>>>>
>>>> Shared common inputs:
>>>> i0 - GPS / external
>>>> i1 - SMA1 / external
>>>> i2 - SMA2 / external
>>>> i3 - MUX0 / clk recovered from PHY0.X driven by MAC0
>>>> i4 - MUX1 / clk recovered from PHY1.X driven by MAC1
>>>>
>>>> +---------------------------------------------------------+
>>>> | Channel A / FW0 +---+ |
>>>> | i0--| | |
>>>> | +---+ | | |
>>>> | PHY0.0--| | i1--| D | |
>>>> | | | | P | |
>>>> | PHY0.1--| M | i2--| L | +---+ +--------+ |
>>>> | | U | | L |---| |---| PHY0.0 |--|
>>>> | PHY0.2--| X |-+---------i3--| 0 | | | +--------+ |
>>>> | | 0 | |+------+ | |---| M |---| PHY0.1 |--|
>>>> | ... --| | || MUX1 |-i4--| | | A | +--------+ |
>>>> | | | |+------+ +---+ | C |---| PHY0.2 |--|
>>>> | PHY0.7--| | | i0--| | | 0 | +--------+ |
>>>> | +---+ | | |---| |---| ... |--|
>>>> | | i1--| D | | | +--------+ |
>>>> | | | P |---| |---| PHY0.7 |--|
>>>> | | i2--| L | +---+ +--------+ |
>>>> | | | L | |
>>>> | \---------i3--| 1 | |
>>>> | +------+ | | |
>>>> | | MUX1 |-i4--| | |
>>>> | +------+ +---+ |
>>>> +---------------------------------------------------------+
>>>> | Channel B / FW1 +---+ |
>>>> | i0--| | |
>>>> | | | |
>>>> | i1--| D | |
>>>> | +---+ | P | |
>>>> | PHY1.0--| | i2--| L | +---+ +--------+ |
>>>> | | | +------+ | L |---| |---| PHY1.0 |--|
>>>> | PHY1.1--| M | | MUX0 |-i3--| 0 | | | +--------+ |
>>>> | | U | +------+ | |---| M |---| PHY1.1 |--|
>>>> | PHY1.2--| X |-+---------i4--| | | A | +--------+ |
>>>> | | 1 | | +---+ | C |---| PHY1.2 |--|
>>>> | ... --| | | i0--| | | 1 | +--------+ |
>>>> | | | | | |---| |---| ... |--|
>>>> | PHY1.7--| | | i1--| D | | | +--------+ |
>>>> | +---+ | | P |---| |---| PHY1.7 |--|
>>>> | | i2--| L | +---+ +--------+ |
>>>> | |+------+ | L | |
>>>> | || MUX0 |-i3--| 1 | |
>>>> | |+------+ | | |
>>>> | \---------i4--| | |
>>>> | +---+ |
>>>> +---------------------------------------------------------+
>>>
>>> What is "a channel" here? Are these 2 channels part of the same physival
>>> chip? Could you add the synchronizer chip/device entities to your
>drawing?
>>>
>>
>> No.
>> A "Synchronization Channel" on a switch would allow to separate groups
>> of physical ports. Each channel/group has own "Synchronizer Chip", which
>is
>> used to drive PHY clocks of that group.
>>
>> "Synchronizer chip" would be the 2 DPLLs on old draw, something like
>this:
>> +--------------------------------------------------------------+
>> | Channel A / FW0 +-------------+ +---+ +--------+ |
>> | i0--|Synchronizer0|---| |---| PHY0.0 |--|
>> | +---+ | | | | +--------+ |
>> | PHY0.0--| | i1--| |---| M |---| PHY0.1 |--|
>> | | | | +-----+ | | A | +--------+ |
>> | PHY0.1--| M | i2--| |DPLL0| | | C |---| PHY0.2 |--|
>> | | U | | +-----+ | | 0 | +--------+ |
>> | PHY0.2--| X |--+---i3--| +-----+ |---| |---| ... |--|
>> | | 0 | | | |DPLL1| | | | +--------+ |
>> | ... --| | | /-i4--| +-----+ |---| |---| PHY0.7 |--|
>> | | | | | +-------------+ +---+ +--------+ |
>> | PHY0.7--| | | | |
>> | +---+ | | |
>> +----------------|-|-------------------------------------------+
>> | Channel B / FW1| | +-------------+ +---+ +--------+ |
>> | | | i0--|Synchronizer1|---| |---| PHY1.0 |--|
>> | +---+ | | | | | | +--------+ |
>> | PHY1.0--| | | | i1--| |---| M |---| PHY1.1 |--|
>> | | | | | | +-----+ | | A | +--------+ |
>> | PHY1.1--| M | | | i2--| |DPLL0| | | C |---| PHY1.2 |--|
>> | | U | | | | +-----+ | | 1 | +--------+ |
>> | PHY1.2--| X | \-|-i3--| +-----+ |---| |---| ... |--|
>> | | 1 | | | |DPLL1| | | | +--------+ |
>> | ... --| |----+-i4--| +-----+ |---| |---| PHY1.7 |--|
>> | | | +-------------+ +---+ +--------+ |
>> | PHY1.7--| | |
>> | +---+ |
>> +--------------------------------------------------------------+
>> Also, please keep in mind that is an example, there could be easily 4
>> (or more) channels wired similarly.
>>
>
>
>Hi,
>
>This model tries to put too much into the synchronizer subsystem. The
>synchronizer device should only model inputs, DPLLs and outputs.
>
>The PHY lane to Synchronizer input muxing should be done in the
>PHY/netdev subsystem. That's why I wanted to start with the full model
>to specifically address this topic.
>
>The netdev should have an assigned list of Synchronizer inputs that it
>can recover its SyncE clocks into. It can be done by having a connection
>between the synchronizer input object(s) and the netdev, just like the
>netdev is connected to PHC clocks in the PHC subsystem. This is the
>model I initially presented about a year ago for solving this specific
>issue.
>
>Analogically, the netdev will be connected to a given output, however
>changing anything in the physical clock configuration sounds dangerous.
>
>Does that sound reasonable?
>
>Regards
>Maciek
It sounds reasonable to some point.
You have mentioned list of Synchronizer inputs. If there is a list of inputs
it means it was created somewhere. I assume dpll subsystem? If so you would
like to export that list out of dpll subsystem, thus other entities would need
to find such list, then find particular source and somehow register with it.
All of this was proposed as part of netdev, I don't see any benefit in having
this parts separated from dpll, as only dpll would use it, right?
The same behavior is now provided by the MUX type pin, enclosed within dpll
subsystem.
BR,
Arkadiusz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists