netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 6/7] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: provide software node for default settings

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]

Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 08:41:05 +0000
From:   "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 6/7] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: provide software
 node for default settings

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 10:40:26PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > What I'm trying to find out is what you think the behaviour should be
> > in this case. Are you suggesting we should fall back to what we do now
> > which is let the driver do it internally without phylink.
> > 
> > The problem is that if we don't go down the phylink route for everything
> > then we /can't/ convert mv88e6xxx to phylink_pcs, because the "serdes"
> > stuff will be gone, and the absence of phylink will mean those won't be
> > called e.g. to power up the serdes.
> 
> I'm pretty sure non-DT systems have never used SERDES. They are using
> a back to back PHY, or maybe RGMII. So long as this keeps working, we
> can convert to phylink.
> 
> And i have such a amd64 system, using back to back PHYs so i can test
> it does not regress.

Reading the code, I don't think we have any issue with the DSA and CPU
ports, as these check whether dp->dn is not NULL before calling
dsa_shared_port_link_register_of() and the validator. This means these
paths will only be used for setups that have DT.

For the user ports, we can end up calling dsa_port_phylink_create()
with a NULL dp->dn, and must not fail.

So, given that this is only supposed to be used for mv88e6xxx because
of it's legacy, maybe the check in dsa_port_phylink_create() should
be:

        fwnode = of_fwnode_handle(dp->dn);
        if (fwnode && ds->ops->port_get_fwnode) {

In other words, we only allow the replacement of the firmware
description if one already existed.

Alternatively, we could use:

	if (!dsa_port_is_user(dp) && ds->ops->port_get_fwnode) {

since mv88e6xxx today only does this "max speed" thing for CPU and
DSA ports, and thus we only need to replace the firmware description
for these ports - and we can document that port_get_fwnode is only
for CPU and DSA ports.

Hmm?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!