From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0733C433EF for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 10:20:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DFDA6103D for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 10:20:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240337AbhIWKV5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2021 06:21:57 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45462 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S240277AbhIWKVy (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2021 06:21:54 -0400 Received: from pandora.armlinux.org.uk (pandora.armlinux.org.uk [IPv6:2001:4d48:ad52:32c8:5054:ff:fe00:142]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A03EFC061574 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 03:20:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=armlinux.org.uk; s=pandora-2019; h=Sender:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=lD1F8kwufHoNm7bny0W3lBgyclLbKZwqvRbYwYr/+wI=; b=ZfilH/Q2ziXs9V4O2+tg66mri8 DTYm3+b8s64OAA7c7r/gwakFTizQ1IJN6znTpQrRnQYE+EDiJ6WaKn3xWl5eeD7Nd9UtpWlImTD/T mZQZZ3j42nEgmfIh7qP2lFF+H9Ye/Tm2JrN4JjaeU252XhJpEiWqAiIzbn8iYUSJzVKn0yBbvYFN7 mYtRfy4TCxsBX623nLsNynjWM6aPdnzNQBlOGuU1dPkmSiVHVS30N7Y14n4pJrSdzqesN4oZLvSJL Eh5A8GwfVsK3xpmvina8kK4ZEJP+xPG8L4xS/ybME0L0njx5yqTN4Z8CXTwPgi43qgJQ+Ogmb/gmC WU1VVHtQ==; Received: from shell.armlinux.org.uk ([fd8f:7570:feb6:1:5054:ff:fe00:4ec]:54756) by pandora.armlinux.org.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1mTLpz-0004rD-Dn; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 11:20:19 +0100 Received: from linux by shell.armlinux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1mTLpw-00059G-GJ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 11:20:16 +0100 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 11:20:16 +0100 From: "Russell King (Oracle)" To: Vladimir Oltean Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Antoine Tenart , Michael Walle , Heiner Kallweit , Andrew Lunn , Florian Fainelli , Ioana Ciornei , Maxim Kochetkov , Bjarni Jonasson , Steen Hegelund , "UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com" , "bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com" , Nicolas Ferre , Claudiu Beznea Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 net-next 2/6] net: phylink: introduce a generic method for querying PHY in-band autoneg capability Message-ID: References: <20210922181446.2677089-1-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> <20210922181446.2677089-3-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> <20210922213116.7wlvnjfeqjltiecs@skbuf> <20210922214827.wczsgk3yw3vjsv5w@skbuf> <20210922235033.hoz4rbx2eid6snyc@skbuf> <20210923095817.7s74g2fqkzqn6wgn@skbuf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210923095817.7s74g2fqkzqn6wgn@skbuf> Sender: Russell King (Oracle) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:58:18AM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:19:21AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:50:34PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 12:03:22AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 09:48:28PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 12:31:16AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:22:19PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 09:14:42PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > > > > > > > +static unsigned int phylink_fixup_inband_aneg(struct phylink *pl, > > > > > > > > + struct phy_device *phy, > > > > > > > > + unsigned int mode) > > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > > + int ret; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + ret = phy_validate_inband_aneg(phy, pl->link_interface); > > > > > > > > + if (ret == PHY_INBAND_ANEG_UNKNOWN) { > > > > > > > > + phylink_dbg(pl, > > > > > > > > + "PHY driver does not report in-band autoneg capability, assuming %s\n", > > > > > > > > + phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) ? "true" : "false"); > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + return mode; > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + if (phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) && !(ret & PHY_INBAND_ANEG_ON)) { > > > > > > > > + phylink_err(pl, > > > > > > > > + "Requested in-band autoneg but driver does not support this, disabling it.\n"); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we add support to the BCM84881 driver to work with > > > > > > > phy_validate_inband_aneg(), then this will always return > > > > > > > PHY_INBAND_ANEG_OFF and never PHY_INBAND_ANEG_ON. Consequently, > > > > > > > this will always produce this "error". It is not an error in the > > > > > > > SFP case, but it is if firmware is misconfigured. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this needs better handling - we should not be issuing an error- > > > > > > > level kernel message for something that is "normal". > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this better? > > > > > > > > > > > > phylink_printk(phy_on_sfp(phy) ? KERN_DEBUG : KERN_ERR, pl, > > > > > > "Requested in-band autoneg but driver does not support this, disabling it.\n"); > > > > > > > > > > Ah, not sure whether that was a trick question or not, but > > > > > phylink_fixup_inband_aneg function does not get called for the SFP code > > > > > path, I even noted this in the commit message but forgot: > > > > > > > > No it wasn't a trick question. I thought you were calling > > > > phylink_fixup_inband_aneg() from phylink_sfp_config(), but I see now > > > > that you don't. That's what happens when you try and rush to review. > > > > > > How did I "rush to review" exactly? I waited for 24 days since the v2 > > > for even a single review comment, with even a ping in between, before > > > resending the series largely unaltered, just with an extra patch appended. > > > > FFS. Are you intentionally trying to misinterpret everything I say? > > Who here is doing a review? You or me? > > > > "That's what happens when you try and rush to review." is a form of > > speech - clearly the "you" is not aimed at you Vladimir, but me. > > Let's put this a different way. > > > > I am blaming myself for rushing to review this last night. > > > > Is that more clear for you? > > Apologies for misinterpreting, even though that was still the only > interpretation I could give that would make logical sense. I would encourage you to read up on "second-person self reference". It's a thing in English since at least the 16th century through to today, and also exists in other languages. > Why would you > rush to review an RFC in the middle of the night if it wasn't me who was > rushing you, and pinging earlier? And why mention it in the first place? I think at this point I'm just going to give up for the rest of the week looking at netdev patches. I really don't want this stress. And it _IS_ extremely stressful dealing with netdev stuff. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!