Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] net: phy/mdio: enable mmd indirect access through phy_mii_ioctl() | From | Grygorii Strashko <> | Date | Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:22:16 +0200 |
| |
On 02/11/2021 23:46, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> @@ -300,8 +301,18 @@ int phy_mii_ioctl(struct phy_device *phydev, struct ifreq *ifr, int cmd) >> prtad = mii_data->phy_id; >> devad = mii_data->reg_num; >> } >> - mii_data->val_out = mdiobus_read(phydev->mdio.bus, prtad, >> - devad); >> + >> + if (prtad != phydev->mdio.addr) >> + phydev_rq = mdiobus_get_phy(phydev->mdio.bus, prtad); >> + >> + if (!phydev_rq) { >> + mii_data->val_out = mdiobus_read(phydev->mdio.bus, prtad, devad); >> + } else if (mdio_phy_id_is_c45(mii_data->phy_id) && !phydev->is_c45) { >> + mii_data->val_out = phy_read_mmd(phydev_rq, mdio_phy_id_devad(mii_data->phy_id), mii_data->reg_num); >> + } else { >> + mii_data->val_out = phy_read(phydev_rq, mii_data->reg_num); >> + } >> + > > One thing i don't like about this is you have little idea what it has > actually done. > > If you pass a C45 address, i expect a C45 access. If i pass a C22 i > expect a C22 access.
I might be doing smth wrong and that's why it's RFC. I wanted to understand if i hook into the kernel side first correctly, so if above doesn't violate PHYs/mdiodev access any more there seems reason try to continue.
> > What i find interesting is that you and the other resent requester are > using the same user space tool. If you implement C45 over C22 in that > tool, you get your solution, and it will work for older kernels as > well. Also, given the diverse implementations of this IOTCL, it > probably works for more drivers than just those using phy_mii_ioctl().
Do you mean change uapi, like add mdio_phy_id_is_c45_over_c22() and flag #define MDIO_PHY_ID_C45_OVER_C22 0x4000?
Thank you for your comments and patience.
-- Best regards, grygorii
| |