netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] amd-xgbe: add support for rx-adaptation

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: <Y9zBL/3GdBRRRh+i@corigine.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2023 09:09:19 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc:     Raju Rangoju <Raju.Rangoju@....com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
        Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] amd-xgbe: add support for rx-adaptation

On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 03:16:50PM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-02-01 at 18:11 +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 11:19:32AM +0530, Raju Rangoju wrote:
> > > The existing implementation for non-Autonegotiation 10G speed modes does
> > > not enable RX adaptation in the Driver and FW. The RX Equalization
> > > settings (AFE settings alone) are manually configured and the existing
> > > link-up sequence in the driver does not perform rx adaptation process as
> > > mentioned in the Synopsys databook. There's a customer request for 10G
> > > backplane mode without Auto-negotiation and for the DAC cables of more
> > > significant length that follow the non-Autonegotiation mode. These modes
> > > require PHY to perform RX Adaptation.
> > > 
> > > The proposed logic adds the necessary changes to Yellow Carp devices to
> > > ensure seamless RX Adaptation for 10G-SFI (LONG DAC) and 10G-KR without
> > > AN (CL72 not present). The RX adaptation core algorithm is executed by
> > > firmware, however, to achieve that a new mailbox sub-command is required
> > > to be sent by the driver.
> > > 
> > > Co-developed-by: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Raju Rangoju <Raju.Rangoju@....com>
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe.h
> > > index 16e73df3e9b9..ad136ed493ed 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe.h
> > > @@ -625,6 +625,7 @@ enum xgbe_mb_cmd {
> > >  
> > >  enum xgbe_mb_subcmd {
> > >  	XGBE_MB_SUBCMD_NONE = 0,
> > > +	XGBE_MB_SUBCMD_RX_ADAP,
> > >  
> > >  	/* 10GbE SFP subcommands */
> > >  	XGBE_MB_SUBCMD_ACTIVE = 0,
> > > @@ -1316,6 +1317,10 @@ struct xgbe_prv_data {
> > >  
> > >  	bool debugfs_an_cdr_workaround;
> > >  	bool debugfs_an_cdr_track_early;
> > > +	bool en_rx_adap;
> > 
> > nit: there is a 1 byte hole here (on x86_64)
> 
> I think even in the current form is ok. The total size of the struct is
> not going to change, due to alignment, and the fields will sit in the
> same cacheline in both cases.
> 
> I guess the layout could be changed later if needed.

Ok, I did think it was worth mentioning.
But I agree that it doesn't need to be changed at this time.