Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Jul 2022 19:17:24 -0700 | Subject | Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] net: dsa: bcm_sf2: Utilize PHYLINK for all ports | From | Florian Fainelli <> |
| |
On 7/26/2022 6:29 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 09:14:17AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >>> This begs the natural question, is overriding the link status ever needed? >> >> It was until we started to unconditionally reset the switch using the >> "external" reset method as opposed to the "internal" reset method >> which turned out not to be functional: >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=eee87e4377a4b86dc2eea0ade162b0dc33f40576 > > Ok, I see. > >> At any rate (no pun intended), 4908 will want a 2GBit/sec IMP port to >> be set-up and we have no way to do that other than by forcing that >> setting, either through the bcm_sf2_imp_setup() method or via a hack >> to the mac_link_up() callback. This is kind of orthogonal in the sense >> that there is no "official" support for speed 2000 mbits/sec anyway in >> the emulated SW PHY, PHYLINK or anywhere in between but if we want to >> fully transition over to PHYLINK to configure all ports, which is >> absolutely the goal, we will need to find a solution one way or >> another. > > So I made some tests with speed = <2000>; in the device tree and in a > way I'm more confused than when I started. I was expecting phylink_validate() > to somehow fail but this isn't at all what happened. Instead everything > seems to work just fine, minus some ergonomic details (some prints). > > So in the case of a fixed-link, phylink_validate() is actually called > twice, once directly from phylink_create() and once almost immediately > afterwards from phylink_parse_fixedlink(). Both validations are of the > inquisitive kind rather than the confrontational kind, i.e. their return > value isn't checked, and "pl->supported"/"pl->link_config.advertising" > are initially filled by phylink with all ones, in order for the driver > to reduce this to all link mode bits that are supported. > Minor side note, this second validation done during fixed-link parsing > is redundant IMO, because nothing relevant inside the arguments that we > pass to pl->mac_ops->validate() will have changed in any way between the > calls. > > Anyway, if phylink_validate() is never going to confront us about the > pl->supported link mode mask becoming zero, you might wonder why it > calls even inquisitively in the first place. > > Essentially phylink_parse_fixedlink() just wants to print in case it's > using a link speed that isn't supported by the driver. To do that, it > calls phy_lookup_setting() where one of the arguments is pl->supported > itself. But in our case, there is no link mode for speed 2000, although > that shouldn't matter, since no Ethernet PHY sees or needs to advertise > this speed, so phy_lookup_setting() finds nothing. I suspect this is > largely due to historical reasons, where the link modes were the common > denominator at the level of the driver visible phylink_validate() API. > Today we may simply extend config->mac_capabilities and forgo adding > bogus link modes just for this to work. > > Curiously, even if we go to the extra lengths of silencing phylink's > "fixed link not recognised" warning, nothing seems to be broken even if > we don't do that. > > Immediately after pl->supported has been populated by the inquisitive > phylink_validate(), phylink clears it (which means that the pl->supported > variable used above could have very well been just a temporary on-stack > variable), and just populates some fields. > Namely the pause fields, and a *single* speed, corresponding to "s" > (what phy_lookup_setting() found). > > linkmode_zero(pl->supported); > phylink_set(pl->supported, MII); > phylink_set(pl->supported, Pause); > phylink_set(pl->supported, Asym_Pause); > phylink_set(pl->supported, Autoneg); > if (s) { > __set_bit(s->bit, pl->supported); > __set_bit(s->bit, pl->link_config.lp_advertising); > } else { > phylink_warn(pl, "fixed link %s duplex %dMbps not recognised\n", > pl->link_config.duplex == DUPLEX_FULL ? "full" : "half", > pl->link_config.speed); > } > > Why phylink even bothers to keep the speed-related linkmode in > pl->supported, if it won't use it anywhere further, I can't answer. > I can even delete the "if (s) ... else ..." block altogether and nothing > seems to be adversely impacted. > > In any case, the short version of the code walkthrough is that phylink > can apparently operate in fixed-link mode with a pl->supported and > pl->link_config.lp_advertising mask of link modes that doesn't contain > any speed, and this won't generate any error, although I'm not completely > sure it was intended either.
OK, well maybe we need to syszbot the crap out of PHYLINK at some point, kunit anyone?
> >> I would prefer if also we sort of "transferred" the 'fixed-link' >> parameters from the DSA Ethernet controller attached to the CPU port >> onto the PHYLINK instance of the CPU port in the switch as they ought >> to be strictly identical otherwise it just won't work. This would >> ensure that we continue to force the link and it would make me sleep >> better a night to know that the IMP port is operating strictly the >> same way it was. My script compares register values before/after for >> the registers that are static and this was flagged as a difference. > > There are several problems with transferring the parameters. Most > obvious derives from what we discussed about speed = <2000> just above: > the DSA master won't have it, either, because it's a non-standard speed. > Additionally, the DSA master may be missing the phy-mode too. > > Second has to do with how we transfer the phy-mode assuming it isn't > missing on the master. RGMII modes are clearly problematic precisely > because we have so many driver interpretations of what they mean. > But "mii" and "rmii" aren't all that clear-cut either. Do we translate > into "mii" and "rmii" for DSA, or "rev-mii" and "rev-rmii"? > bcm_sf2 understands "rev-mii", but mv88e6xxx doesn't.
Yep, you have me convinced. I suppose the course of action for me is to update the DTSes to also include a fixed-link property and phy-mode property in the CPU node, even if that duplicates what the Ethernet controller node already has, and then given a cycle or two, merge this patch series. -- Florian
| |