On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:50:07PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:17:38AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c b/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c
> > index 729b36eeb2c46..7fc2155d93d6e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c
> > @@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ static const u16 ksz8795_regs[] = {
> > [S_BROADCAST_CTRL] = 0x06,
> > [S_MULTICAST_CTRL] = 0x04,
> > [P_XMII_CTRL_0] = 0x06,
> > - [P_XMII_CTRL_1] = 0x56,
> > + [P_XMII_CTRL_1] = 0x06,
>
> Looking at this driver, I have to say that it looks utterly vile
> from the point of view of being sure that it is correct, and I
> think this patch illustrates why.
>
> You mention you're using a KSZ8794. This uses the ksz8795_regs
> array, and ksz8_dev_ops. You claim this is about the P_GMII_1GBIT_M
> bit, which is bit 6.
>
> This bit is accessed only by ksz_get_gbit() and ksz_set_gbit().
>
> Firstly, ksz_set_gbit() is only called from ksz_port_set_xmii_speed(),
> which is only called from ksz9477_phylink_mac_link_up(). This is only
> referenced by ksz9477_dev_ops and lan937x_dev_ops, but not ksz8_dev_ops.
> Therefore, ksz_set_gbit() is not called for KSZ8794.
>
> ksz_get_gbit() is only referenced by ksz9477.c in
> ksz9477_get_interface(), called only by ksz9477_config_cpu_port().
> This is only referenced by ksz9477_dev_ops, but not ksz8_dev_ops.
>
> Therefore, my conclusion is that neither of the ksz_*_gbit()
> functions are called on KSZ8794, and thus your change has no effect
> on the driver's use of P_GMII_1GBIT_M - I think if you put some
> debugging printk()s into both ksz_*_gbit() functions, it'll prove
> that.
>
> There's other places that P_XMII_CTRL_1 is accessed - ksz_set_xmii()
> and ksz_get_xmii(). These look at the P_MII_SEL_M, P_RGMII_ID_IG_ENABLE
> and P_RGMII_ID_EG_ENABLE bits - bits 0, 1, 3 and 4.
>
> ksz_get_xmii() is only called by ksz9477_get_interface(), which we've
> already looked at above as not being called.
>
> ksz_set_xmii() is only called by ksz_phylink_mac_config(), which is
> always called irrespective of the KSZ chip.
>
> Now, let's look at functions that access P_XMII_CTRL_0. These are
> ksz_set_100_10mbit() and ksz_duplex_flowctrl(). The former
> accesses bit P_MII_100MBIT_M, which is bit 4. The latter looks at
> bits 6, bit 5, and possibly bit 3 depending on the masks being used.
> KSZ8795 uses ksz8795_masks, which omits bit 3, so bits 5 and 6.
> Note... bit 6 is also P_GMII_1GBIT_M. So if ksz_duplex_flowctrl()
> is ever called for the KSZ8795, then we have a situation where
> the P_GMII_1GBIT_M will be manipulated.
>
> ksz_set_100_10mbit() is only called from ksz_port_set_xmii_speed(),
> which we've established won't be called.
>
> ksz_duplex_flowctrl() is only called from ksz9477_phylink_mac_link_up()
> which we've also established won't be called.
>
> So, as far as I can see, P_XMII_CTRL_0 won't be accessed on this
> device.
>
> Now, what about other KSZ devices - I've analysed this for the KSZ8795,
> but what about any of the others which use this register table? It
> looks to me like those that use ksz8795_regs[] all use ksz8_dev_ops
> and the same masks and bitvals, so they should be the same.
>
> That is a hell of a lot of work to prove that setting both
> P_XMII_CTRL_0 and P_XMII_CTRL_1 to point at the same register is
> in fact safe. Given the number of registers, the masks, and bitval
> arrays, doing this to prove every combination and then analysing
> the code is utterly impractical - and thus why I label this driver
> as "vile". Is there really no better option to these register
> arrays, bitval arrays and mask arrays - something that makes it
> easier to review and prove correctness?
>
> I'm not going to give a reviewed-by for this, because... I could
> have made a mistake in the above analysis given the vile nature
> of this driver.
However, I should add that - as a result of neither ksz_*_gbit()
functions being used, I consider at least the subject line to be
rather misleading! While it may be something that you spotted,
I suspect the other bits that are actually written are more the
issue you're fixing.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
