On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 08:49:39AM +0100, Maxime Chevallier wrote: > > > On 12/03/2026 06:04, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 07:50:52PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 20:26:39 +0100 Andrew Lunn wrote: > >>>> For that we have what we need with phy_link_topology, as each PHY has > >>>> its index, we should be good to go in that regard hopefully :) > >>> > >>> So depth would be local to a component? We could have two PHY > >>> components, each with a different index, and depth = 0? > >>> > >>> I _think_ Jakub's depth was more at a global level? But then it would > >>> need to be passed down as we do the enumeration. > >> > >> Oh, sorry, I responded without reading the whole discussion :) > >> No, I imagined the depth would be within a single component, > >> so under control of a single driver (instance). The ordering > >> between components should be defined by PHY topology etc so > >> it's outside of the loopback config. > > > > As for me, it is problematic to help the user to understand the datapath > > depth on a switch. For example: > > > > CPU -- xMII --- MAC1 [loop] --- fabric --- MAC2 [loop] --- xMII -- PHY > > \----- MACx [loop] --- > > > > ... each port has two xMII loop configurations: towards the xMII or towards > > the fabric. From a driver perspective, a loop towards the xMII is > > "remote." However, from a system perspective, a "remote" loop on MAC1 is > > a local loop at depth=0, whereas a "local" loop on MAC2 is a local loop > > at depth=1. > > What's important is to specify clearly in the documentation from which > end do we start, where representing the topology. From your scenario > here, each block is already well represented and exposed, and if we use > local depth definitions we should be fine ?
I guess my main problem is to imagine depth representation in two separate directions for the user. So, the kernel documentation should describe what is the starting point of view depending on the device type. For example: - PHY has typically xMII and MDI end points, so the loop towards the xMII is the local loop and towards the MDI is the remote loop. - a switch/bridge has mutiple, application specific end points. So, we have a starting point of view from the fabric. Every loop pointing from the fabric towards the outside world of the switch is the remote loop, independent on connection type (xMII or MDI). Correct? > > Other example would be where we have a chain of components which are > > attached on the system in a unexpected direction, where the MDI > > interface is pointing towards the main CPU, so the remote loopbacks > > became to local loop. > > I have a few of these types of setup on my desk, where 3 PHY devices are > daisy-chained, we don't support that for now. If we one day add support > for standalone PHYs acting as media converters, I expect we'll be able > to tell which end is pointing where, and let it up to the user to figure > out what "remote" and "local" means in that case. > > > > > One more issue is the test data generator location. The data generator > > is not always the CPU. We have HW generators located in components like > > PHYs or we may use external source (remote loopback). > > There were discussions about PRBS, I think the same idea of "pinpointing > which block we want to use" can be applied for both loopback and > generation ? Yes, the same apply for the counters. If we represent the data path as pipe with different components like loopbacks, PRBS, etc on different stages of the pipe, the same we have with counters. For example industrial or automotive PHYs have separate counters for xMII and MDI. A low depth loopback would not triggers some of counters. Since I do not wont push all of this right now, i suggest to use more abstract topology representation to make it easily extendable. -- 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 |
