On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 03:39:08PM +0100, Steen Hegelund wrote: > On 29.11.2020 11:28, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the > > content is safe > > > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 10:52:45AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 10:28:28PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin > > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 08:06:16PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > > > +static void sparx5_phylink_mac_config(struct phylink_config > > > > > > *config, > > > > > > + unsigned int mode, > > > > > > + const struct > > > > > > phylink_link_state *state) > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > + struct sparx5_port *port = > > > > > > netdev_priv(to_net_dev(config->dev)); > > > > > > + struct sparx5_port_config conf; > > > > > > + int err = 0; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + conf = port->conf; > > > > > > + conf.autoneg = state->an_enabled; > > > > > > + conf.pause = state->pause; > > > > > > + conf.duplex = state->duplex; > > > > > > + conf.power_down = false; > > > > > > + conf.portmode = state->interface; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + if (state->speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN) { > > > > > > + /* When a SFP is plugged in we use capabilities to > > > > > > + * default to the highest supported speed > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > > > This looks suspicious. > > > > > > > > Yes, it looks highly suspicious. The fact that > > > > sparx5_phylink_mac_link_up() is empty, and sparx5_phylink_mac_config() > > > > does all the work suggests that this was developed before the phylink > > > > re-organisation, and this code hasn't been updated for it. > > > > > > > > Any new code for the kernel really ought to be updated for the new > > > > phylink methodology before it is accepted. > > > > > > > > Looking at sparx5_port_config(), it also seems to use > > > > PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_1000BASEX for both 1000BASE-X and 2500BASE-X. All > > > > very well for the driver to do that internally, but it's confusing > > > > when it comes to reviewing this stuff, especially when people outside > > > > of the driver (such as myself) reviewing it need to understand what's > > > > going on with the configuration. > > > > > > There are other issues too. > > > > > > Looking at sparx5_get_1000basex_status(), we have: > > > > > > + status->link = DEV2G5_PCS1G_LINK_STATUS_LINK_STATUS_GET(value) | > > > + DEV2G5_PCS1G_LINK_STATUS_SYNC_STATUS_GET(value); > > > > > > Why is the link status the logical OR of these? > > > > > > + if ((lp_abil >> 8) & 1) /* symmetric pause */ > > > + status->pause = MLO_PAUSE_RX | > > > MLO_PAUSE_TX; > > > + if (lp_abil & (1 << 7)) /* asymmetric pause */ > > > + status->pause |= MLO_PAUSE_RX; > > > > > > is actually wrong, and I see I need to improve the documentation for > > > mac_pcs_get_state(). The intention in the documentation was concerning > > > hardware that indicated the _resolved_ status of pause modes. It was > > > not intended that drivers resolve the pause modes themselves. > > > > > > Even so, the above is still wrong; it takes no account of what is being > > > advertised at the local end. If one looks at the implementation in > > > phylink_decode_c37_word(), one will notice there is code to deal with > > > this. > > > > > > I think we ought to make phylink_decode_c37_word() and > > > phylink_decode_sgmii_word() public functions, and then this driver can > > > use these helpers to decode the link partner advertisement to the > > > phylink state. > > > > > > Does the driver need to provide an ethtool .get_link function? That > > > seems to bypass phylink. Why can't ethtool_op_get_link() be used? > > > > > > I think if ethtool_op_get_link() is used, we then have just one caller > > > for sparx5_get_port_status(), which means "struct sparx5_port_status" > > > can be eliminated and the code cleaned up to use the phylink decoding > > > helpers. > > > > (Sorry, I keep spotting bits in the code - it's really not an easy > > chunk of code to review.) > > > > I'm also not sure that this is really correct: > > > > + status->serdes_link = !phy_validate(port->serdes, PHY_MODE_ETHERNET, > > + port->conf.portmode, NULL); > > > > The documentation for phy_validate() says: > > > > * Used to check that the current set of parameters can be handled by > > * the phy. Implementations are free to tune the parameters passed as > > * arguments if needed by some implementation detail or > > * constraints. It will not change any actual configuration of the > > * PHY, so calling it as many times as deemed fit will have no side > > * effect. > > > > and clearly, passing NULL for opts, gives the function no opportunity > > to do what it's intended, so phy_validate() is being used for some > > other purpose than that which the drivers/phy subsystem intends it to > > be used for. > > Hi Russell, > > Yes this is a bit of an overload of the phy_validate(). > > The Serdes driver validates the portmode, and if OK, it returns the > current state of the link (bool), so that the client (SwitchDev) can know if > the > link parameters so far results in a operational link. It does not change > any configuration.
This seems very strange. What is the point of asking for a portmode which could be different from the current mode, and returning the link state for the current mode? I don't think that there is an alternative interface - maybe it would be a better idea to propose a new interface to the drivers/phy maintainers, rather than bodging an existing interface for your needs? Thanks. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!