netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 5/9] net: ethernet: oa_tc6: implement internal PHY initialization

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: <ef816337-96c6-49ac-9301-170e26e3e1c7@microchip.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 04:53:58 +0000
From: <Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com>
To: <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <corbet@....net>,
	<Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>, <rdunlap@...radead.org>, <horms@...nel.org>,
	<casper.casan@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com>,
	<Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>, <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>,
	<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 5/9] net: ethernet: oa_tc6: implement internal
 PHY initialization

Hi Andrew,

On 31/10/23 6:18 pm, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
>>>> +             tc6->mdiobus = mdiobus_alloc();
>>>> +             if (!tc6->mdiobus) {
>>>> +                     netdev_err(tc6->netdev, "MDIO bus alloc failed\n");
>>>> +                     return -ENODEV;
>>>> +             }
>>>> +
>>>> +             tc6->mdiobus->phy_mask = ~(u32)BIT(1);
>>>
>>> Does the standard define this ? BIT(1), not BIT(0)?
>> Ok, I think here is a typo. Will correct it.
> 
> There is still the open question, does the standard define this? If
> not, a vendor might decide to use some other address, not 0. So it
> might be better to not set a mask and scan the whole bus.
> phy_find_first() should then work, no matter what address it is using.
The standard doesn't define anything about this. Ok I agree with this, 
and remove the phy_mask and leave the phy_find_first() to find the phy.

Best Regards,
Parthiban V
> 
>          Andrew