netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: implement USXGMII mode for mv88e6393x

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sat, 27 May 2023 16:08:01 +0000
From: Michal Smulski <michal.smulski@...a.com>
To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
CC: "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>, "f.fainelli@...il.com"
	<f.fainelli@...il.com>, "olteanv@...il.com" <olteanv@...il.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: implement USXGMII mode for
 mv88e6393x

This is a good catch. I will fix this and resubmit the patch.

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> 
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2023 6:29 AM
To: Michal Smulski <msmulski2@...il.com>
Cc: andrew@...n.ch; f.fainelli@...il.com; olteanv@...il.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Michal Smulski <michal.smulski@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: implement USXGMII mode for mv88e6393x

CAUTION: This email is originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 05:21:44PM -0700, Michal Smulski wrote:
> Enable USXGMII mode for mv88e6393x chips. Tested on Marvell 88E6191X.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Smulski <michal.smulski@...a.com>

...

> @@ -1477,7 +1481,8 @@ static int mv88e6393x_serdes_erratum_5_2(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int lane,
>        * to SERDES operating in 10G mode. These registers only apply to 10G
>        * operation and have no effect on other speeds.
>        */
> -     if (cmode != MV88E6393X_PORT_STS_CMODE_10GBASER)
> +     if (cmode != MV88E6393X_PORT_STS_CMODE_10GBASER ||
> +         cmode != MV88E6393X_PORT_STS_CMODE_USXGMII)

Perhaps naïvely, this seems like it will always be true.
Should it be:

        if (cmode != MV88E6393X_PORT_STS_CMODE_10GBASER &&
            cmode != MV88E6393X_PORT_STS_CMODE_USXGMII)