netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/2] e1000e: let the sleep codes run every time

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: <7f533913-fba9-4a29-86a5-d3b32ac44632@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 18:53:14 +0300
From: Sasha Neftin <sasha.neftin@...el.com>
To: Ricky Wu <en-wei.wu@...onical.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <rickywu0421@...il.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, "Ruinskiy, Dima"
	<dima.ruinskiy@...el.com>, "Lifshits, Vitaly" <vitaly.lifshits@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 1/2] e1000e: let the sleep codes run
 every time

On 03/05/2024 13:18, Ricky Wu wrote:
> Originally, the sleep codes being moved forward only
> ran if we met some conditions (e.g. BMSR_LSTATUS bit
> not set in phy_status). Moving these sleep codes forward
> makes the usec_interval take effect every time.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ricky Wu <en-wei.wu@...onical.com>
> ---
> 
> In v2:
> * Split the sleep codes into this patch
> 
>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/phy.c | 9 +++++----
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/phy.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/phy.c
> index 93544f1cc2a5..4a58d56679c9 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/phy.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/phy.c
> @@ -1777,6 +1777,11 @@ s32 e1000e_phy_has_link_generic(struct e1000_hw *hw, u32 iterations,
>   
>   	*success = false;
>   	for (i = 0; i < iterations; i++) {
> +		if (usec_interval >= 1000)
> +			msleep(usec_interval / 1000);
> +		else
> +			udelay(usec_interval);
> +

I do not understand this approach. Why wait before first 
reading/accessing the PHY IEEE register?

For further discussion, I would like to introduce Dima Ruinskiy (architect)

>   		/* Some PHYs require the MII_BMSR register to be read
>   		 * twice due to the link bit being sticky.  No harm doing
>   		 * it across the board.
> @@ -1799,10 +1804,6 @@ s32 e1000e_phy_has_link_generic(struct e1000_hw *hw, u32 iterations,
>   			*success = true;
>   			break;
>   		}
> -		if (usec_interval >= 1000)
> -			msleep(usec_interval / 1000);
> -		else
> -			udelay(usec_interval);
>   	}
>   
>   	return ret_val;