netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next v3 6/8] net: pcs: Add 10GBASE-R mode for Synopsys Designware XPCS

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: <037501d9732b$518048d0$f480da70$@trustnetic.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:56:26 +0800
From:   Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@...stnetic.com>
To:     "'Vladimir Oltean'" <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        <mengyuanlou@...-swift.com>,
        "'Jose Abreu'" <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v3 6/8] net: pcs: Add 10GBASE-R mode for Synopsys Designware XPCS

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 9:20 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 04:27:37PM +0800, Jiawen Wu wrote:
> > Add basic support for XPCS using 10GBASE-R interface. This mode will
> > be extended to use interrupt, so set pcs.poll false. And avoid soft
> > reset so that the device using this mode is in the default configuration.
> 
> I'm not clear why the xpcs_soft_reset() call is avoided. Isn't the
> out-of-reset configuration the "default" one?
> 

Theoretically so, I need to configure 10GBASE-R mode after reset. But this
configuration involves board info to configure PMA, etc., I'd like to implement
it in the next patch. Now the "default" configuration refers to the mode in
which the firmware is configured.

> > +static int xpcs_get_state_10gbaser(struct dw_xpcs *xpcs,
> > +				   struct phylink_link_state *state)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	state->link = false;
> > +
> > +	ret = xpcs_read(xpcs, MDIO_MMD_PCS, MDIO_STAT1);
> > +	if (ret < 0)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	if (ret & MDIO_STAT1_LSTATUS)
> > +		state->link = true;
> > +
> > +	if (state->link) {
> 
> It seems pointless to open a new "if" statement when this would have
> sufficed:
> 
> 	if (ret & MDIO_STAT1_LSTATUS) {
> 		state->link = true;
> 		state->pause = MLO_PAUSE_TX | MLO_PAUSE_RX;
> 		...
> 	}
> 
> > +		state->pause = MLO_PAUSE_TX | MLO_PAUSE_RX;
> > +		state->duplex = DUPLEX_FULL;
> > +		state->speed = SPEED_10000;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
>