netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 6/6] net: dsa: b53: remove eee_enabled/eee_active in b53_get_mac

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: <20240206132923.eypnqvqwe3cga5tp@skbuf>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 15:29:23 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
	Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
	Byungho An <bh74.an@...sung.com>,
	Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
	Justin Chen <justin.chen@...adcom.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@....com>, Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 6/6] net: dsa: b53: remove
 eee_enabled/eee_active in b53_get_mac_eee()

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 01:12:33PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > I know next to nothing about EEE and especially the implementation on
> > Broadcom switches. But is the information brought by B53_EEE_LPI_INDICATE
> > completely redundant? Is it actually in the system's best interest to
> > ignore it?
> 
> That's a review comment that should have been made when the original
> change to phylib was done, because it's already ignored in kernels
> today since the commit changing phylib that I've referenced in this
> series - since e->eee_enabled and e->eee_active will be overwritten by
> phylib.

That's fair, but commit d1420bb99515 ("net: phy: improve generic EEE
ethtool functions") is dated November 2018, and my involvement with the
kernel started in March 2019. So it would have been a bit difficult for
me to make this observation back then.

> If we need B53_EEE_LPI_INDICATE to do something, then we need to have
> a discussion about it, and decide how that fits in with the EEE
> interface, and how to work around phylib's implementation.

Hopefully Florian or Doug can quickly clarify whether this is the case
or not.