netdev - RE: [PATCH RFC v6 1/6] dpll: spec: Add Netlink spec in YAML

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: <DM6PR11MB4657BD050F326085A21817C99BBD9@DM6PR11MB4657.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Mar 2023 00:53:49 +0000
From:   "Kubalewski, Arkadiusz" <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC:     Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...a.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>,
        poros <poros@...hat.com>, mschmidt <mschmidt@...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>,
        "Michalik, Michal" <michal.michalik@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC v6 1/6] dpll: spec: Add Netlink spec in YAML

>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:20 PM
>
>Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 02:45:10PM CET, jiri@...nulli.us wrote:
>>Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 02:15:59PM CET, arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>
>>>>>+      flags: [ admin-perm ]
>>>>>+
>>>>>+      do:
>>>>>+        pre: dpll-pre-doit
>>>>>+        post: dpll-post-doit
>>>>>+        request:
>>>>>+          attributes:
>>>>>+            - id
>>>>>+            - bus-name
>>>>>+            - dev-name
>>>>>+            - mode
>>>>
>>>>Hmm, shouldn't source-pin-index be here as well?
>>>
>>>No, there is no set for this.
>>>For manual mode user selects the pin by setting enabled state on the one
>>>he needs to recover signal from.
>>>
>>>source-pin-index is read only, returns active source.
>>
>>Okay, got it. Then why do we have this assymetric approach? Just have
>>the enabled state to serve the user to see which one is selected, no?
>>This would help to avoid confusion (like mine) and allow not to create
>>inconsistencies (like no pin enabled yet driver to return some source
>>pin index)
>
>Actually, for mlx5 implementation, would be non-trivial to implement
>this, as each of the pin/port is instantiated and controlled by separate
>pci backend.
>
>Could you please remove, it is not needed and has potential and real
>issues.
>
>[...]

Sorry I cannot, for priority based automatic selection mode multiple sources
are enabled at any time - selection is done automatically by the chip.
Thus for that case, this attribute is only way of getting an active source.
Although, maybe we could allow driver to not implement it, would this help
for your case? As it seems only required for automatic mode selection.

Thank you,
Arkadiusz