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: <57406055-ff3c-4788-bbf7-8476f63f90db@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 20:25:17 -0800
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
 "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 2/6/2024 5:29 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> 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.

Russell's replacement is actually a better one because it will return a 
stable state. B53_EEE_LPI_INDICATE would indicate when the switch port's 
built-in PHY asserts the LPI signal to its MAC, which could be transient 
AFAICT.
-- 
Florian