netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] net: phy: dp83tg720: Add cable testing support

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: <ff096c1c-00bf-4e55-9400-fb869749b07f@lunn.ch>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 15:24:52 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	kernel@...gutronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] net: phy: dp83tg720: Add cable testing
 support

On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 11:32:51AM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> Introduce cable testing support for the DP83TG720 PHY. This implementation
> is based on the "DP83TG720S-Q1: Configuring for Open Alliance Specification
> Compliance (Rev. B)" application note.

Does the OA specification describe all these registers? Should we
expect other devices to be identical?

> +/**
> + * dp83tg720_get_fault_type - Convert TDR fault type to ethtool result code.
> + * @fault_type: Fault type value from the PHY.
> + *
> + * Returns: Corresponding ethtool result code.
> + */
> +static int dp83tg720_get_fault_type(int fault_type)
> +{
> +	switch (fault_type) {
> +	case DP83TG720S_TDR_FAULT_TYPE_SHORT:
> +		return ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_RESULT_CODE_SAME_SHORT;
> +	case DP83TG720S_TDR_FAULT_TYPE_OPEN:
> +		return ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_RESULT_CODE_OPEN;
> +	case DP83TG720S_TDR_FAULT_TYPE_NOISE:
> +		return ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_RESULT_CODE_UNSPEC;

You could add a new type for this. I think some implementations will
also re-try a few times to see if a quiet period can be found.

	Andrew