Hi Michal, On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 09:52:22PM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 09:53:07AM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > This UAPI is needed for BroadR-Reach 100BASE-T1 devices. Due to lack of > > auto-negotiation support, we needed to be able to configure the > > MASTER-SLAVE role of the port manually or from an application in user > > space. > > > > The same UAPI can be used for 1000BASE-T or MultiGBASE-T devices to > > force MASTER or SLAVE role. See IEEE 802.3-2018: > > 22.2.4.3.7 MASTER-SLAVE control register (Register 9) > > 22.2.4.3.8 MASTER-SLAVE status register (Register 10) > > 40.5.2 MASTER-SLAVE configuration resolution > > 45.2.1.185.1 MASTER-SLAVE config value (1.2100.14) > > 45.2.7.10 MultiGBASE-T AN control 1 register (Register 7.32) > > > > The MASTER-SLAVE role affects the clock configuration: > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > When the PHY is configured as MASTER, the PMA Transmit function shall > > source TX_TCLK from a local clock source. When configured as SLAVE, the > > PMA Transmit function shall source TX_TCLK from the clock recovered from > > data stream provided by MASTER. > > > > iMX6Q KSZ9031 XXX > > ------\ /-----------\ /------------\ > > | | | | | > > MAC |<----RGMII----->| PHY Slave |<------>| PHY Master | > > |<--- 125 MHz ---+-<------/ | | \ | > > ------/ \-----------/ \------------/ > > ^ > > \-TX_TCLK > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Since some clock or link related issues are only reproducible in a > > specific MASTER-SLAVE-role, MAC and PHY configuration, it is beneficial > > to provide generic (not 100BASE-T1 specific) interface to the user space > > for configuration flexibility and trouble shooting. > > > > Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rem...@pengutronix.de> > > --- > [...] > > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c > > index 72c69a9c8a98a..a6a774beb2f90 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c > > @@ -285,6 +285,9 @@ int phy_ethtool_ksettings_set(struct phy_device *phydev, > > duplex != DUPLEX_FULL))) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > + if (!ethtool_validate_master_slave_cfg(cmd->base.master_slave_cfg)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > Unless we can/want to pass extack down here, I would prefer to have the > sanity check in ethtool_update_linkmodes() or ethtool_set_linkmodes() so > that we can set meaningful error message and offending attribute in > extack. (It could be even part of the policy.) Also, with the check only > here, drivers/devices not calling phy_ethtool_set_link_ksettings() > (directly or via phy_ethtool_set_link_ksettings()) and not handling the > new members themselves would silently ignore any value from userspace.
ok > > phydev->autoneg = autoneg; > > > > phydev->speed = speed; > [...] > > +static int genphy_setup_master_slave(struct phy_device *phydev) > > +{ > > + u16 ctl = 0; > > + > > + if (!phydev->is_gigabit_capable) > > + return 0; > > Shouldn't we rather return -EOPNOTSUPP if value different from > CFG_UNKNOWN was requested? sounds plausible. > > + > > + switch (phydev->master_slave_set) { > > + case PORT_MODE_CFG_MASTER_PREFERRED: > > + ctl |= CTL1000_PREFER_MASTER; > > + break; > > + case PORT_MODE_CFG_SLAVE_PREFERRED: > > + break; > > + case PORT_MODE_CFG_MASTER_FORCE: > > + ctl |= CTL1000_AS_MASTER; > > + /* fallthrough */ > > + case PORT_MODE_CFG_SLAVE_FORCE: > > + ctl |= CTL1000_ENABLE_MASTER; > > + break; > > + case PORT_MODE_CFG_UNKNOWN: > > + return 0; > > + default: > > + phydev_warn(phydev, "Unsupported Master/Slave mode\n"); > > + return 0; > > + } > [...] > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h b/include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h > > index 92f737f101178..eb680e3d6bda5 100644 > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h > > @@ -1666,6 +1666,31 @@ static inline int ethtool_validate_duplex(__u8 > > duplex) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +/* Port mode */ > > +#define PORT_MODE_CFG_UNKNOWN 0 > > +#define PORT_MODE_CFG_MASTER_PREFERRED 1 > > +#define PORT_MODE_CFG_SLAVE_PREFERRED 2 > > +#define PORT_MODE_CFG_MASTER_FORCE 3 > > +#define PORT_MODE_CFG_SLAVE_FORCE 4 > > +#define PORT_MODE_STATE_UNKNOWN 0 > > +#define PORT_MODE_STATE_MASTER 1 > > +#define PORT_MODE_STATE_SLAVE 2 > > +#define PORT_MODE_STATE_ERR 3 > > You have "MASTER_SLAVE" or "master_slave" everywhere but "PORT_MODE" in > these constants which is inconsistent. What will be preferred name? > > + > > +static inline int ethtool_validate_master_slave_cfg(__u8 cfg) > > +{ > > + switch (cfg) { > > + case PORT_MODE_CFG_MASTER_PREFERRED: > > + case PORT_MODE_CFG_SLAVE_PREFERRED: > > + case PORT_MODE_CFG_MASTER_FORCE: > > + case PORT_MODE_CFG_SLAVE_FORCE: > > + case PORT_MODE_CFG_UNKNOWN: > > + return 1; > > + } > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > Should we really allow CFG_UNKNOWN in client requests? As far as I can > see, this value is handled as no-op which should be rather expressed by > absence of the attribute. Allowing the client to request a value, > keeping current one and returning 0 (success) is IMHO wrong. ok > Also, should this function be in UAPI header? It is placed together with other validate functions: ethtool_validate_duplex ethtool_validate_speed Doing it in a different place, would be inconsistent. > [...] > > @@ -119,7 +123,12 @@ static int linkmodes_fill_reply(struct sk_buff *skb, > > } > > > > if (nla_put_u32(skb, ETHTOOL_A_LINKMODES_SPEED, lsettings->speed) || > > - nla_put_u8(skb, ETHTOOL_A_LINKMODES_DUPLEX, lsettings->duplex)) > > + nla_put_u8(skb, ETHTOOL_A_LINKMODES_DUPLEX, lsettings->duplex) || > > + nla_put_u8(skb, ETHTOOL_A_LINKMODES_MASTER_SLAVE_CFG, > > + lsettings->master_slave_cfg) || > > + nla_put_u8(skb, ETHTOOL_A_LINKMODES_MASTER_SLAVE_STATE, > > + lsettings->master_slave_state)) > > + > > return -EMSGSIZE; > > From the two handlers you introduced, it seems we only get CFG_UNKNOWN > or STATE_UNKNOWN if driver or device does not support the feature at all > so it would be IMHO more appropriate to omit the attribute in such case. STATE_UNKNOWN is returned if link is not active. Regards, Oleksij -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature