On 03/16/2017 12:46 AM, Roger Quadros wrote:
> On 15/03/17 17:49, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 05:00:08PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>> On 15/03/17 16:08, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:51:27PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>>>> Since commit 3c293f4e08b5 ("net: phy: Trigger state machine on state
>>>>> change and not polling.")
>>>>> phy_suspend() doesn't get called as part of phy_stop() for PHYs using
>>>>> interrupts because the phy state machine is never triggered after a
>>>>> phy_stop().
>>>>>
>>>>> Explicitly trigger the PHY state machine so that it can
>>>>> see the new PHY state (HALTED) and suspend the PHY.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rog...@ti.com>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Roger
>>>>
>>>> This seems sensible. It mirrors what phy_start() does.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch>
>>>
>>> The reason for this being an RFC was the following comment just before
>>> where I add the phy_trigger_machine()
>>>
>>> /* Cannot call flush_scheduled_work() here as desired because
>>> * of rtnl_lock(), but PHY_HALTED shall guarantee phy_change()
>>> * will not reenable interrupts.
>>> */
>>>
>>> Is this comment still applicable? If yes, is it OK to call
>>> phy_trigger_machine() there?
>>
>> Humm, good question.
>>
>> My _guess_ would be, calling it with sync=True could
>> deadlock. sync=False is probably safe. But lets see what Florian says.
>
> I agree that we should use phy_trigger_machine() with sync=False.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It does however lead to a follow up question. Are there other places
>>>> phydev->state is changed and it is missing a phy_trigger_machine()?
>>>>
>>>
>>> One other place I think we should add phy_trigger_machine() is
>>> phy_start_aneg().
>>
>> Humm, that might get us into a tight loop.
>>
>> phy_start_aneg() kicks the phy driver to start autoneg and sets
>> phydev->state = PHY_AN.
>>
>> phy_trigger_machine() triggers the state machine immediately.
>>
>> In state PHY_AN, we check if aneg is done. If not, it sets needs_aneg
>> = true. At the end of the state machine, this then calls
>> phy_start_aneg(), and it all starts again.
>>
>> We are missing the 1s delay we have with polling. So for
>> phy_start_aneg(), we might need a phy_delayed_trigger_machine(), which
>> waits a second before doing anything?
>
> I think that should do the trick.
>
> How about this?
This sounds like a possible fix indeed, however I would like to better
assess the impact on non interrupt driven PHYs before rolling such a change.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
> index 8fef03b..162061c 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
> @@ -630,6 +630,10 @@ int phy_start_aneg(struct phy_device *phydev)
>
> out_unlock:
> mutex_unlock(&phydev->lock);
> +
> + if (!err)
> + queue_delayed_work(system_power_efficient_wq,
> &phydev->state_queue, HZ);
> +
> return err;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(phy_start_aneg);
>
--
Florian
