netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/6] net: phy: microchip_t1s: fix reset complete status handling

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: <ZHBcUvSbX0taOED3@debian>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 09:14:26 +0200
From: Ramón Nordin Rodriguez <ramon.nordin.rodriguez@...roamp.se>
To: Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com
Cc: andrew@...n.ch, hkallweit1@...il.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com,
	Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com, Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com,
	Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/6] net: phy: microchip_t1s: fix reset
 complete status handling

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 06:00:08AM +0000, Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com wrote:
> Hi Ramon,
> >> +     /* Read STS2 register and check for the Reset Complete status to do the
> >> +      * init configuration. If the Reset Complete is not set, wait for 5us
> >> +      * and then read STS2 register again and check for Reset Complete status.
> >> +      * Still if it is failed then declare PHY reset error or else proceed
> >> +      * for the PHY initial register configuration.
> >> +      */
> > 
> > This comment explains exactly what the code does, which is also obvious
> > from reading the code. A meaningful comment would be explaining why the
> > state can change 5us later.
> > 
> As per design, LAN867x reset to be completed by 3us. Just for a safer 
> side it is recommended to use 5us. With the assumption of more than 3us 
> completion, the first read checks for the Reset Complete. If the 
> config_init is more faster, then once again checks for it after 5us.
> 
> As you mentioned, can we remove the existing block comment as it 
> explains the code and add the above comment to explain 5us delay.
> What is your opinion on this proposal?
> 
> Best Regards,
> Parthiban V
> 

I'd suggest the following
/*The chip completes a reset in 3us, we might get here earlier than that,
as an added margin we'll conditionally sleep 5us*/