[PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Russell King (Oracle)]

Hi,

This is a re-hash of the previous RFC series, this time using the
suggestion from Vladimir to create a swnode based fixed-link
specifier.

Most of the changes are to DSA and phylink code from the previous
series. I've tested on my Clearfog (which has just one Marvell DSA
switch) and it works there - also tested without the fixed-link
specified in DT.

 drivers/base/swnode.c                  |  14 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c       |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/bcm_sf2.c              |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/hirschmann/hellcreek.c |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c         |   6 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c               |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c       | 134 ++++++++++++-------------
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h       |   6 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c       |  32 ------
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.h       |   5 -
 drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c         |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/qca/ar9331.c           |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/qca8k.c                |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/realtek/rtl8365mb.c    |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/xrs700x/xrs700x.c      |   3 +-
 drivers/net/phy/phylink.c              |  30 ++++--
 include/linux/phylink.h                |   1 +
 include/linux/property.h               |   4 +
 include/net/dsa.h                      |   3 +-
 net/dsa/port.c                         | 175 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 22 files changed, 290 insertions(+), 153 deletions(-)

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

[PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Russell King (Oracle)]

Hi,

This is a re-hash of the previous RFC series, this time using the
suggestion from Vladimir to create a swnode based fixed-link
specifier.

Most of the changes are to DSA and phylink code from the previous
series. I've tested on my Clearfog (which has just one Marvell DSA
switch) and it works there - also tested without the fixed-link
specified in DT.

 drivers/base/swnode.c                  |  14 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c       |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/bcm_sf2.c              |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/hirschmann/hellcreek.c |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c         |   6 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c               |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c       | 134 ++++++++++++-------------
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h       |   6 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c       |  32 ------
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.h       |   5 -
 drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c         |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/qca/ar9331.c           |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/qca8k.c                |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/realtek/rtl8365mb.c    |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c |   3 +-
 drivers/net/dsa/xrs700x/xrs700x.c      |   3 +-
 drivers/net/phy/phylink.c              |  30 ++++--
 include/linux/phylink.h                |   1 +
 include/linux/property.h               |   4 +
 include/net/dsa.h                      |   3 +-
 net/dsa/port.c                         | 175 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 22 files changed, 290 insertions(+), 153 deletions(-)

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH net-next 1/6] net: phylink: split out and export interface to caps translation

[Russell King (Oracle)]

phylink_get_linkmodes() translates the interface mode into a set of
speed and duplex capabilities which are masked with the MAC modes to
then derive the link modes that are available.

Split out the initial transformation into a new function
phylink_interface_to_caps(), and export it, which will be useful when
setting the maximum fixed link speed in DSA code.

Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
---
 drivers/net/phy/phylink.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 include/linux/phylink.h   |  1 +
 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phylink.c b/drivers/net/phy/phylink.c
index 9bd69328dc4d..1d4a48d5a5ac 100644
--- a/drivers/net/phy/phylink.c
+++ b/drivers/net/phy/phylink.c
@@ -297,17 +297,12 @@ static void phylink_caps_to_linkmodes(unsigned long *linkmodes,
 }
 
 /**
- * phylink_get_linkmodes() - get acceptable link modes
- * @linkmodes: ethtool linkmode mask (must be already initialised)
+ * phylink_interface_to_caps() - translate an interface mode to phylink caps
  * @interface: phy interface mode defined by &typedef phy_interface_t
- * @mac_capabilities: bitmask of MAC capabilities
  *
- * Set all possible pause, speed and duplex linkmodes in @linkmodes that
- * are supported by the @interface mode and @mac_capabilities. @linkmodes
- * must have been initialised previously.
+ * Translate the @interface mode to a phylink MAC capabilities mask.
  */
-void phylink_get_linkmodes(unsigned long *linkmodes, phy_interface_t interface,
-			   unsigned long mac_capabilities)
+unsigned long phylink_interface_to_caps(phy_interface_t interface)
 {
 	unsigned long caps = MAC_SYM_PAUSE | MAC_ASYM_PAUSE;
 
@@ -381,6 +376,25 @@ void phylink_get_linkmodes(unsigned long *linkmodes, phy_interface_t interface,
 		break;
 	}
 
+	return caps;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(phylink_interface_to_caps);
+
+/**
+ * phylink_get_linkmodes() - get acceptable link modes
+ * @linkmodes: ethtool linkmode mask (must be already initialised)
+ * @interface: phy interface mode defined by &typedef phy_interface_t
+ * @mac_capabilities: bitmask of MAC capabilities
+ *
+ * Set all possible pause, speed and duplex linkmodes in @linkmodes that
+ * are supported by the @interface mode and @mac_capabilities. @linkmodes
+ * must have been initialised previously.
+ */
+void phylink_get_linkmodes(unsigned long *linkmodes, phy_interface_t interface,
+			   unsigned long mac_capabilities)
+{
+	unsigned long caps = phylink_interface_to_caps(interface);
+
 	phylink_caps_to_linkmodes(linkmodes, caps & mac_capabilities);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(phylink_get_linkmodes);
diff --git a/include/linux/phylink.h b/include/linux/phylink.h
index 6d06896fc20d..692be109a9fa 100644
--- a/include/linux/phylink.h
+++ b/include/linux/phylink.h
@@ -518,6 +518,7 @@ void pcs_link_up(struct phylink_pcs *pcs, unsigned int mode,
 		 phy_interface_t interface, int speed, int duplex);
 #endif
 
+unsigned long phylink_interface_to_caps(phy_interface_t interface);
 void phylink_get_linkmodes(unsigned long *linkmodes, phy_interface_t interface,
 			   unsigned long mac_capabilities);
 void phylink_generic_validate(struct phylink_config *config,
-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH net-next 1/6] net: phylink: split out and export interface to caps translation

[Russell King (Oracle)]

phylink_get_linkmodes() translates the interface mode into a set of
speed and duplex capabilities which are masked with the MAC modes to
then derive the link modes that are available.

Split out the initial transformation into a new function
phylink_interface_to_caps(), and export it, which will be useful when
setting the maximum fixed link speed in DSA code.

Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
---
 drivers/net/phy/phylink.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 include/linux/phylink.h   |  1 +
 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phylink.c b/drivers/net/phy/phylink.c
index 9bd69328dc4d..1d4a48d5a5ac 100644
--- a/drivers/net/phy/phylink.c
+++ b/drivers/net/phy/phylink.c
@@ -297,17 +297,12 @@ static void phylink_caps_to_linkmodes(unsigned long *linkmodes,
 }
 
 /**
- * phylink_get_linkmodes() - get acceptable link modes
- * @linkmodes: ethtool linkmode mask (must be already initialised)
+ * phylink_interface_to_caps() - translate an interface mode to phylink caps
  * @interface: phy interface mode defined by &typedef phy_interface_t
- * @mac_capabilities: bitmask of MAC capabilities
  *
- * Set all possible pause, speed and duplex linkmodes in @linkmodes that
- * are supported by the @interface mode and @mac_capabilities. @linkmodes
- * must have been initialised previously.
+ * Translate the @interface mode to a phylink MAC capabilities mask.
  */
-void phylink_get_linkmodes(unsigned long *linkmodes, phy_interface_t interface,
-			   unsigned long mac_capabilities)
+unsigned long phylink_interface_to_caps(phy_interface_t interface)
 {
 	unsigned long caps = MAC_SYM_PAUSE | MAC_ASYM_PAUSE;
 
@@ -381,6 +376,25 @@ void phylink_get_linkmodes(unsigned long *linkmodes, phy_interface_t interface,
 		break;
 	}
 
+	return caps;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(phylink_interface_to_caps);
+
+/**
+ * phylink_get_linkmodes() - get acceptable link modes
+ * @linkmodes: ethtool linkmode mask (must be already initialised)
+ * @interface: phy interface mode defined by &typedef phy_interface_t
+ * @mac_capabilities: bitmask of MAC capabilities
+ *
+ * Set all possible pause, speed and duplex linkmodes in @linkmodes that
+ * are supported by the @interface mode and @mac_capabilities. @linkmodes
+ * must have been initialised previously.
+ */
+void phylink_get_linkmodes(unsigned long *linkmodes, phy_interface_t interface,
+			   unsigned long mac_capabilities)
+{
+	unsigned long caps = phylink_interface_to_caps(interface);
+
 	phylink_caps_to_linkmodes(linkmodes, caps & mac_capabilities);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(phylink_get_linkmodes);
diff --git a/include/linux/phylink.h b/include/linux/phylink.h
index 6d06896fc20d..692be109a9fa 100644
--- a/include/linux/phylink.h
+++ b/include/linux/phylink.h
@@ -518,6 +518,7 @@ void pcs_link_up(struct phylink_pcs *pcs, unsigned int mode,
 		 phy_interface_t interface, int speed, int duplex);
 #endif
 
+unsigned long phylink_interface_to_caps(phy_interface_t interface);
 void phylink_get_linkmodes(unsigned long *linkmodes, phy_interface_t interface,
 			   unsigned long mac_capabilities);
 void phylink_generic_validate(struct phylink_config *config,
-- 
2.30.2


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Russell King]

From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>

Allow a named software node to be created, which is needed for software
nodes for a fixed-link specification for DSA.

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
---
 drivers/base/swnode.c    | 14 ++++++++++++--
 include/linux/property.h |  4 ++++
 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/base/swnode.c b/drivers/base/swnode.c
index 0a482212c7e8..b2ea08f0e898 100644
--- a/drivers/base/swnode.c
+++ b/drivers/base/swnode.c
@@ -972,8 +972,9 @@ void software_node_unregister(const struct software_node *node)
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(software_node_unregister);
 
 struct fwnode_handle *
-fwnode_create_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
-			    const struct fwnode_handle *parent)
+fwnode_create_named_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
+				  const struct fwnode_handle *parent,
+				  const char *name)
 {
 	struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
 	struct software_node *node;
@@ -991,6 +992,7 @@ fwnode_create_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
 		return ERR_CAST(node);
 
 	node->parent = p ? p->node : NULL;
+	node->name = name;
 
 	fwnode = swnode_register(node, p, 1);
 	if (IS_ERR(fwnode))
@@ -998,6 +1000,14 @@ fwnode_create_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
 
 	return fwnode;
 }
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fwnode_create_named_software_node);
+
+struct fwnode_handle *
+fwnode_create_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
+			    const struct fwnode_handle *parent)
+{
+	return fwnode_create_named_software_node(properties, parent, NULL);
+}
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fwnode_create_software_node);
 
 void fwnode_remove_software_node(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
diff --git a/include/linux/property.h b/include/linux/property.h
index a5b429d623f6..23330ae2b1fa 100644
--- a/include/linux/property.h
+++ b/include/linux/property.h
@@ -492,6 +492,10 @@ void software_node_unregister(const struct software_node *node);
 struct fwnode_handle *
 fwnode_create_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
 			    const struct fwnode_handle *parent);
+struct fwnode_handle *
+fwnode_create_named_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
+				  const struct fwnode_handle *parent,
+				  const char *name);
 void fwnode_remove_software_node(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode);
 
 int device_add_software_node(struct device *dev, const struct software_node *node);
-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Russell King]

From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>

Allow a named software node to be created, which is needed for software
nodes for a fixed-link specification for DSA.

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
---
 drivers/base/swnode.c    | 14 ++++++++++++--
 include/linux/property.h |  4 ++++
 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/base/swnode.c b/drivers/base/swnode.c
index 0a482212c7e8..b2ea08f0e898 100644
--- a/drivers/base/swnode.c
+++ b/drivers/base/swnode.c
@@ -972,8 +972,9 @@ void software_node_unregister(const struct software_node *node)
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(software_node_unregister);
 
 struct fwnode_handle *
-fwnode_create_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
-			    const struct fwnode_handle *parent)
+fwnode_create_named_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
+				  const struct fwnode_handle *parent,
+				  const char *name)
 {
 	struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
 	struct software_node *node;
@@ -991,6 +992,7 @@ fwnode_create_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
 		return ERR_CAST(node);
 
 	node->parent = p ? p->node : NULL;
+	node->name = name;
 
 	fwnode = swnode_register(node, p, 1);
 	if (IS_ERR(fwnode))
@@ -998,6 +1000,14 @@ fwnode_create_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
 
 	return fwnode;
 }
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fwnode_create_named_software_node);
+
+struct fwnode_handle *
+fwnode_create_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
+			    const struct fwnode_handle *parent)
+{
+	return fwnode_create_named_software_node(properties, parent, NULL);
+}
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fwnode_create_software_node);
 
 void fwnode_remove_software_node(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
diff --git a/include/linux/property.h b/include/linux/property.h
index a5b429d623f6..23330ae2b1fa 100644
--- a/include/linux/property.h
+++ b/include/linux/property.h
@@ -492,6 +492,10 @@ void software_node_unregister(const struct software_node *node);
 struct fwnode_handle *
 fwnode_create_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
 			    const struct fwnode_handle *parent);
+struct fwnode_handle *
+fwnode_create_named_software_node(const struct property_entry *properties,
+				  const struct fwnode_handle *parent,
+				  const char *name);
 void fwnode_remove_software_node(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode);
 
 int device_add_software_node(struct device *dev, const struct software_node *node);
-- 
2.30.2


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

DSA port bindings allow for an optional phy interface mode. When an
interface mode is not specified, DSA uses the NA interface mode type.

However, phylink needs to know the parameters of the link, and this
will become especially important when using phylink for ports that
are devoid of all properties except the required "reg" property, so
that phylink can select the maximum supported link settings. Without
knowing the interface mode, phylink can't truely know the maximum
link speed.

Update the prototype for the phylink_get_caps method to allow drivers
to report this information back to DSA, and update all DSA
implementations function declarations to cater for this change. No
code is added to the implementations.

Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
---
 drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c       |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/bcm_sf2.c              |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/hirschmann/hellcreek.c |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c         |  6 ++++--
 drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c               |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c       |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c         |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/qca/ar9331.c           |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/qca8k.c                |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/realtek/rtl8365mb.c    |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/xrs700x/xrs700x.c      |  3 ++-
 include/net/dsa.h                      |  3 ++-
 net/dsa/port.c                         | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
 15 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c b/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
index 48cf344750ff..fe75b84ab791 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
@@ -1310,7 +1310,8 @@ void b53_port_event(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(b53_port_event);
 
 static void b53_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				 struct phylink_config *config)
+				 struct phylink_config *config,
+				 phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	struct b53_device *dev = ds->priv;
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/bcm_sf2.c b/drivers/net/dsa/bcm_sf2.c
index be0edfa093d0..18a3847bd82b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/bcm_sf2.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/bcm_sf2.c
@@ -713,7 +713,8 @@ static u32 bcm_sf2_sw_get_phy_flags(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)
 }
 
 static void bcm_sf2_sw_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				struct phylink_config *config)
+				struct phylink_config *config,
+				phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	unsigned long *interfaces = config->supported_interfaces;
 	struct bcm_sf2_priv *priv = bcm_sf2_to_priv(ds);
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/hirschmann/hellcreek.c b/drivers/net/dsa/hirschmann/hellcreek.c
index 01f90994dedd..6c1ef6997789 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/hirschmann/hellcreek.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/hirschmann/hellcreek.c
@@ -1462,7 +1462,8 @@ static void hellcreek_teardown(struct dsa_switch *ds)
 }
 
 static void hellcreek_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	struct hellcreek *hellcreek = ds->priv;
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
index e531b93f3cb2..a43dabfa5453 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
@@ -1492,7 +1492,8 @@ static int gswip_port_change_mtu(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, int new_mtu)
 }
 
 static void gswip_xrx200_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-					  struct phylink_config *config)
+					  struct phylink_config *config,
+					  phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	switch (port) {
 	case 0:
@@ -1525,7 +1526,8 @@ static void gswip_xrx200_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
 }
 
 static void gswip_xrx300_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-					  struct phylink_config *config)
+					  struct phylink_config *config,
+					  phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	switch (port) {
 	case 0:
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c b/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c
index 28d7cb2ce98f..4329e29a1695 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c
@@ -721,7 +721,8 @@ static int ksz_check_device_id(struct ksz_device *dev)
 }
 
 static void ksz_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				 struct phylink_config *config)
+				 struct phylink_config *config,
+				 phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	struct ksz_device *dev = ds->priv;
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
index 835807911be0..dab308e454e3 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
@@ -2914,7 +2914,8 @@ mt7531_cpu_port_config(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)
 }
 
 static void mt753x_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				    struct phylink_config *config)
+				    struct phylink_config *config,
+				    phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	struct mt7530_priv *priv = ds->priv;
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
index 37b649501500..f98be98551ef 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
@@ -819,7 +819,8 @@ static void mv88e6393x_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 }
 
 static void mv88e6xxx_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-			       struct phylink_config *config)
+			       struct phylink_config *config,
+			       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds->priv;
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c b/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c
index 859196898a7d..0c1ac902b110 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c
@@ -937,7 +937,8 @@ static int felix_vlan_del(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
 }
 
 static void felix_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				   struct phylink_config *config)
+				   struct phylink_config *config,
+				   phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	struct ocelot *ocelot = ds->priv;
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/qca/ar9331.c b/drivers/net/dsa/qca/ar9331.c
index 0796b7cf8cae..19e95dabe5b9 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/qca/ar9331.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/qca/ar9331.c
@@ -501,7 +501,8 @@ static enum dsa_tag_protocol ar9331_sw_get_tag_protocol(struct dsa_switch *ds,
 }
 
 static void ar9331_sw_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	config->mac_capabilities = MAC_ASYM_PAUSE | MAC_SYM_PAUSE |
 		MAC_10 | MAC_100;
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/qca8k.c b/drivers/net/dsa/qca8k.c
index 1cbb05b0323f..beccd8338c81 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/qca8k.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/qca8k.c
@@ -1749,7 +1749,8 @@ qca8k_phylink_mac_config(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, unsigned int mode,
 }
 
 static void qca8k_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				   struct phylink_config *config)
+				   struct phylink_config *config,
+				   phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	switch (port) {
 	case 0: /* 1st CPU port */
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/rtl8365mb.c b/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/rtl8365mb.c
index da31d8b839ac..7bf420c2b083 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/rtl8365mb.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/rtl8365mb.c
@@ -1024,7 +1024,8 @@ static int rtl8365mb_ext_config_forcemode(struct realtek_priv *priv, int port,
 }
 
 static void rtl8365mb_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	const struct rtl8365mb_extint *extint =
 		rtl8365mb_get_port_extint(ds->priv, port);
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c b/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c
index b253e27bcfb4..e15033177643 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c
@@ -1390,7 +1390,8 @@ static void sja1105_mac_link_up(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
 }
 
 static void sja1105_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				     struct phylink_config *config)
+				     struct phylink_config *config,
+				     phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	struct sja1105_private *priv = ds->priv;
 	struct sja1105_xmii_params_entry *mii;
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/xrs700x/xrs700x.c b/drivers/net/dsa/xrs700x/xrs700x.c
index 3887ed33c5fe..214a1dd670c2 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/xrs700x/xrs700x.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/xrs700x/xrs700x.c
@@ -443,7 +443,8 @@ static void xrs700x_teardown(struct dsa_switch *ds)
 }
 
 static void xrs700x_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				     struct phylink_config *config)
+				     struct phylink_config *config,
+				     phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	switch (port) {
 	case 0:
diff --git a/include/net/dsa.h b/include/net/dsa.h
index b902b31bebce..7c6870d2c607 100644
--- a/include/net/dsa.h
+++ b/include/net/dsa.h
@@ -852,7 +852,8 @@ struct dsa_switch_ops {
 	 * PHYLINK integration
 	 */
 	void	(*phylink_get_caps)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				    struct phylink_config *config);
+				    struct phylink_config *config,
+				    phy_interface_t *default_interface);
 	void	(*phylink_validate)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
 				    unsigned long *supported,
 				    struct phylink_link_state *state);
diff --git a/net/dsa/port.c b/net/dsa/port.c
index 3738f2d40a0b..35b4e1f8dc05 100644
--- a/net/dsa/port.c
+++ b/net/dsa/port.c
@@ -1524,13 +1524,9 @@ static const struct phylink_mac_ops dsa_port_phylink_mac_ops = {
 int dsa_port_phylink_create(struct dsa_port *dp)
 {
 	struct dsa_switch *ds = dp->ds;
-	phy_interface_t mode;
+	phy_interface_t mode, def_mode;
 	int err;
 
-	err = of_get_phy_mode(dp->dn, &mode);
-	if (err)
-		mode = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
-
 	/* Presence of phylink_mac_link_state or phylink_mac_an_restart is
 	 * an indicator of a legacy phylink driver.
 	 */
@@ -1538,8 +1534,23 @@ int dsa_port_phylink_create(struct dsa_port *dp)
 	    ds->ops->phylink_mac_an_restart)
 		dp->pl_config.legacy_pre_march2020 = true;
 
+	def_mode = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
 	if (ds->ops->phylink_get_caps)
-		ds->ops->phylink_get_caps(ds, dp->index, &dp->pl_config);
+		ds->ops->phylink_get_caps(ds, dp->index, &dp->pl_config,
+					  &def_mode);
+
+	err = of_get_phy_mode(dp->dn, &mode);
+	if (err) {
+		/* We must not set the default mode for user ports as a PHY
+		 * overrides the NA mode in phylink. Setting it here would
+		 * prevent the interface mode being updated.
+		 */
+		if (dp->type == DSA_PORT_TYPE_CPU ||
+		    dp->type == DSA_PORT_TYPE_DSA)
+			mode = def_mode;
+		else
+			mode = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
+	}
 
 	dp->pl = phylink_create(&dp->pl_config, of_fwnode_handle(dp->dn),
 				mode, &dsa_port_phylink_mac_ops);
-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

DSA port bindings allow for an optional phy interface mode. When an
interface mode is not specified, DSA uses the NA interface mode type.

However, phylink needs to know the parameters of the link, and this
will become especially important when using phylink for ports that
are devoid of all properties except the required "reg" property, so
that phylink can select the maximum supported link settings. Without
knowing the interface mode, phylink can't truely know the maximum
link speed.

Update the prototype for the phylink_get_caps method to allow drivers
to report this information back to DSA, and update all DSA
implementations function declarations to cater for this change. No
code is added to the implementations.

Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
---
 drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c       |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/bcm_sf2.c              |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/hirschmann/hellcreek.c |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c         |  6 ++++--
 drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c               |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c       |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c         |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/qca/ar9331.c           |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/qca8k.c                |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/realtek/rtl8365mb.c    |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c |  3 ++-
 drivers/net/dsa/xrs700x/xrs700x.c      |  3 ++-
 include/net/dsa.h                      |  3 ++-
 net/dsa/port.c                         | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
 15 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c b/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
index 48cf344750ff..fe75b84ab791 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
@@ -1310,7 +1310,8 @@ void b53_port_event(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(b53_port_event);
 
 static void b53_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				 struct phylink_config *config)
+				 struct phylink_config *config,
+				 phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	struct b53_device *dev = ds->priv;
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/bcm_sf2.c b/drivers/net/dsa/bcm_sf2.c
index be0edfa093d0..18a3847bd82b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/bcm_sf2.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/bcm_sf2.c
@@ -713,7 +713,8 @@ static u32 bcm_sf2_sw_get_phy_flags(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)
 }
 
 static void bcm_sf2_sw_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				struct phylink_config *config)
+				struct phylink_config *config,
+				phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	unsigned long *interfaces = config->supported_interfaces;
 	struct bcm_sf2_priv *priv = bcm_sf2_to_priv(ds);
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/hirschmann/hellcreek.c b/drivers/net/dsa/hirschmann/hellcreek.c
index 01f90994dedd..6c1ef6997789 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/hirschmann/hellcreek.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/hirschmann/hellcreek.c
@@ -1462,7 +1462,8 @@ static void hellcreek_teardown(struct dsa_switch *ds)
 }
 
 static void hellcreek_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	struct hellcreek *hellcreek = ds->priv;
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
index e531b93f3cb2..a43dabfa5453 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
@@ -1492,7 +1492,8 @@ static int gswip_port_change_mtu(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, int new_mtu)
 }
 
 static void gswip_xrx200_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-					  struct phylink_config *config)
+					  struct phylink_config *config,
+					  phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	switch (port) {
 	case 0:
@@ -1525,7 +1526,8 @@ static void gswip_xrx200_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
 }
 
 static void gswip_xrx300_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-					  struct phylink_config *config)
+					  struct phylink_config *config,
+					  phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	switch (port) {
 	case 0:
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c b/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c
index 28d7cb2ce98f..4329e29a1695 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c
@@ -721,7 +721,8 @@ static int ksz_check_device_id(struct ksz_device *dev)
 }
 
 static void ksz_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				 struct phylink_config *config)
+				 struct phylink_config *config,
+				 phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	struct ksz_device *dev = ds->priv;
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
index 835807911be0..dab308e454e3 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c
@@ -2914,7 +2914,8 @@ mt7531_cpu_port_config(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)
 }
 
 static void mt753x_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				    struct phylink_config *config)
+				    struct phylink_config *config,
+				    phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	struct mt7530_priv *priv = ds->priv;
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
index 37b649501500..f98be98551ef 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
@@ -819,7 +819,8 @@ static void mv88e6393x_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 }
 
 static void mv88e6xxx_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-			       struct phylink_config *config)
+			       struct phylink_config *config,
+			       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds->priv;
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c b/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c
index 859196898a7d..0c1ac902b110 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c
@@ -937,7 +937,8 @@ static int felix_vlan_del(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
 }
 
 static void felix_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				   struct phylink_config *config)
+				   struct phylink_config *config,
+				   phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	struct ocelot *ocelot = ds->priv;
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/qca/ar9331.c b/drivers/net/dsa/qca/ar9331.c
index 0796b7cf8cae..19e95dabe5b9 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/qca/ar9331.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/qca/ar9331.c
@@ -501,7 +501,8 @@ static enum dsa_tag_protocol ar9331_sw_get_tag_protocol(struct dsa_switch *ds,
 }
 
 static void ar9331_sw_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	config->mac_capabilities = MAC_ASYM_PAUSE | MAC_SYM_PAUSE |
 		MAC_10 | MAC_100;
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/qca8k.c b/drivers/net/dsa/qca8k.c
index 1cbb05b0323f..beccd8338c81 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/qca8k.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/qca8k.c
@@ -1749,7 +1749,8 @@ qca8k_phylink_mac_config(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, unsigned int mode,
 }
 
 static void qca8k_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				   struct phylink_config *config)
+				   struct phylink_config *config,
+				   phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	switch (port) {
 	case 0: /* 1st CPU port */
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/rtl8365mb.c b/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/rtl8365mb.c
index da31d8b839ac..7bf420c2b083 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/rtl8365mb.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/rtl8365mb.c
@@ -1024,7 +1024,8 @@ static int rtl8365mb_ext_config_forcemode(struct realtek_priv *priv, int port,
 }
 
 static void rtl8365mb_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	const struct rtl8365mb_extint *extint =
 		rtl8365mb_get_port_extint(ds->priv, port);
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c b/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c
index b253e27bcfb4..e15033177643 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c
@@ -1390,7 +1390,8 @@ static void sja1105_mac_link_up(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
 }
 
 static void sja1105_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				     struct phylink_config *config)
+				     struct phylink_config *config,
+				     phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	struct sja1105_private *priv = ds->priv;
 	struct sja1105_xmii_params_entry *mii;
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/xrs700x/xrs700x.c b/drivers/net/dsa/xrs700x/xrs700x.c
index 3887ed33c5fe..214a1dd670c2 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/xrs700x/xrs700x.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/xrs700x/xrs700x.c
@@ -443,7 +443,8 @@ static void xrs700x_teardown(struct dsa_switch *ds)
 }
 
 static void xrs700x_phylink_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				     struct phylink_config *config)
+				     struct phylink_config *config,
+				     phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	switch (port) {
 	case 0:
diff --git a/include/net/dsa.h b/include/net/dsa.h
index b902b31bebce..7c6870d2c607 100644
--- a/include/net/dsa.h
+++ b/include/net/dsa.h
@@ -852,7 +852,8 @@ struct dsa_switch_ops {
 	 * PHYLINK integration
 	 */
 	void	(*phylink_get_caps)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
-				    struct phylink_config *config);
+				    struct phylink_config *config,
+				    phy_interface_t *default_interface);
 	void	(*phylink_validate)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
 				    unsigned long *supported,
 				    struct phylink_link_state *state);
diff --git a/net/dsa/port.c b/net/dsa/port.c
index 3738f2d40a0b..35b4e1f8dc05 100644
--- a/net/dsa/port.c
+++ b/net/dsa/port.c
@@ -1524,13 +1524,9 @@ static const struct phylink_mac_ops dsa_port_phylink_mac_ops = {
 int dsa_port_phylink_create(struct dsa_port *dp)
 {
 	struct dsa_switch *ds = dp->ds;
-	phy_interface_t mode;
+	phy_interface_t mode, def_mode;
 	int err;
 
-	err = of_get_phy_mode(dp->dn, &mode);
-	if (err)
-		mode = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
-
 	/* Presence of phylink_mac_link_state or phylink_mac_an_restart is
 	 * an indicator of a legacy phylink driver.
 	 */
@@ -1538,8 +1534,23 @@ int dsa_port_phylink_create(struct dsa_port *dp)
 	    ds->ops->phylink_mac_an_restart)
 		dp->pl_config.legacy_pre_march2020 = true;
 
+	def_mode = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
 	if (ds->ops->phylink_get_caps)
-		ds->ops->phylink_get_caps(ds, dp->index, &dp->pl_config);
+		ds->ops->phylink_get_caps(ds, dp->index, &dp->pl_config,
+					  &def_mode);
+
+	err = of_get_phy_mode(dp->dn, &mode);
+	if (err) {
+		/* We must not set the default mode for user ports as a PHY
+		 * overrides the NA mode in phylink. Setting it here would
+		 * prevent the interface mode being updated.
+		 */
+		if (dp->type == DSA_PORT_TYPE_CPU ||
+		    dp->type == DSA_PORT_TYPE_DSA)
+			mode = def_mode;
+		else
+			mode = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
+	}
 
 	dp->pl = phylink_create(&dp->pl_config, of_fwnode_handle(dp->dn),
 				mode, &dsa_port_phylink_mac_ops);
-- 
2.30.2


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH net-next 4/6] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: report the default interface mode for the port

[Russell King (Oracle)]

Report the maximum speed interface mode for the port, or if we don't
have that information, the hardware configured interface mode for
the port.

This allows phylink to know which interface mode CPU and DSA ports
are operating, which will be necessary when we want to select the
maximum speed for the port (required for such ports without a PHY or
fixed-link specified in firmware.)

Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
---
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h |  3 +-
 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
index f98be98551ef..ccb35ea5d7b0 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
@@ -578,7 +578,8 @@ static const u8 mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[] = {
 };
 
 static void mv88e6095_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	u8 cmode = chip->ports[port].cmode;
 
@@ -588,23 +589,29 @@ static void mv88e6095_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 		__set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII, config->supported_interfaces);
 	} else {
 		if (cmode < ARRAY_SIZE(mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes) &&
-		    mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode])
+		    mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode]) {
 			__set_bit(mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode],
 				  config->supported_interfaces);
+			*default_interface =
+				mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode];
+		}
 
 		config->mac_capabilities |= MAC_1000FD;
 	}
 }
 
 static void mv88e6185_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	u8 cmode = chip->ports[port].cmode;
 
 	if (cmode < ARRAY_SIZE(mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes) &&
-	    mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode])
+	    mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode]) {
 		__set_bit(mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode],
 			  config->supported_interfaces);
+		*default_interface = mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode];
+	}
 
 	config->mac_capabilities = MAC_SYM_PAUSE | MAC_10 | MAC_100 |
 				   MAC_1000FD;
@@ -616,6 +623,7 @@ static const u8 mv88e6xxx_phy_interface_modes[] = {
 	[MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_GMII]		= PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII,
 	[MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_RMII_PHY]	= PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RMII,
 	[MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_RMII]		= PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RMII,
+	[MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_RGMII]	= PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII,
 	[MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_100BASEX]	= PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_100BASEX,
 	[MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_1000BASEX]	= PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_1000BASEX,
 	[MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_SGMII]	= PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_SGMII,
@@ -625,22 +633,32 @@ static const u8 mv88e6xxx_phy_interface_modes[] = {
 	 */
 };
 
-static void mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(u8 cmode, unsigned long *supported)
+static void mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(u8 cmode, unsigned long *supported,
+				      phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
+	phy_interface_t interface;
+
 	if (cmode < ARRAY_SIZE(mv88e6xxx_phy_interface_modes) &&
-	    mv88e6xxx_phy_interface_modes[cmode])
-		__set_bit(mv88e6xxx_phy_interface_modes[cmode], supported);
-	else if (cmode == MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_RGMII)
-		phy_interface_set_rgmii(supported);
+	    mv88e6xxx_phy_interface_modes[cmode]) {
+		interface = mv88e6xxx_phy_interface_modes[cmode];
+		if (interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII)
+			phy_interface_set_rgmii(supported);
+		else
+			__set_bit(interface, supported);
+		if (default_interface)
+			*default_interface = interface;
+	}
 }
 
 static void mv88e6250_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	unsigned long *supported = config->supported_interfaces;
 
 	/* Translate the default cmode */
-	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported);
+	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported,
+				  default_interface);
 
 	config->mac_capabilities = MAC_SYM_PAUSE | MAC_10 | MAC_100;
 }
@@ -676,13 +694,15 @@ static int mv88e6352_get_port4_serdes_cmode(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip)
 }
 
 static void mv88e6352_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	unsigned long *supported = config->supported_interfaces;
 	int err, cmode;
 
 	/* Translate the default cmode */
-	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported);
+	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported,
+				  default_interface);
 
 	config->mac_capabilities = MAC_SYM_PAUSE | MAC_10 | MAC_100 |
 				   MAC_1000FD;
@@ -702,19 +722,21 @@ static void mv88e6352_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 			dev_err(chip->dev, "p%d: failed to read serdes cmode\n",
 				port);
 		else
-			mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(cmode, supported);
+			mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(cmode, supported, NULL);
 unlock:
 		mv88e6xxx_reg_unlock(chip);
 	}
 }
 
 static void mv88e6341_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	unsigned long *supported = config->supported_interfaces;
 
 	/* Translate the default cmode */
-	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported);
+	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported,
+				  default_interface);
 
 	/* No ethtool bits for 200Mbps */
 	config->mac_capabilities = MAC_SYM_PAUSE | MAC_10 | MAC_100 |
@@ -726,17 +748,21 @@ static void mv88e6341_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 		__set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_1000BASEX, supported);
 		__set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_2500BASEX, supported);
 
+		*default_interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_2500BASEX;
+
 		config->mac_capabilities |= MAC_2500FD;
 	}
 }
 
 static void mv88e6390_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	unsigned long *supported = config->supported_interfaces;
 
 	/* Translate the default cmode */
-	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported);
+	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported,
+				  default_interface);
 
 	/* No ethtool bits for 200Mbps */
 	config->mac_capabilities = MAC_SYM_PAUSE | MAC_10 | MAC_100 |
@@ -748,16 +774,19 @@ static void mv88e6390_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 		__set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_1000BASEX, supported);
 		__set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_2500BASEX, supported);
 
+		*default_interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_2500BASEX;
+
 		config->mac_capabilities |= MAC_2500FD;
 	}
 }
 
 static void mv88e6390x_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-					struct phylink_config *config)
+					struct phylink_config *config,
+					phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	unsigned long *supported = config->supported_interfaces;
 
-	mv88e6390_phylink_get_caps(chip, port, config);
+	mv88e6390_phylink_get_caps(chip, port, config, default_interface);
 
 	/* For the 6x90X, ports 2-7 can be in automedia mode.
 	 * (Note that 6x90 doesn't support RXAUI nor XAUI).
@@ -783,18 +812,22 @@ static void mv88e6390x_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 		__set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_XAUI, supported);
 		__set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RXAUI, supported);
 
+		*default_interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_XAUI;
+
 		config->mac_capabilities |= MAC_10000FD;
 	}
 }
 
 static void mv88e6393x_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-					struct phylink_config *config)
+					struct phylink_config *config,
+					phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	unsigned long *supported = config->supported_interfaces;
 	bool is_6191x =
 		chip->info->prod_num == MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6191X;
 
-	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported);
+	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported,
+				  default_interface);
 
 	config->mac_capabilities = MAC_SYM_PAUSE | MAC_10 | MAC_100 |
 				   MAC_1000FD;
@@ -812,6 +845,8 @@ static void mv88e6393x_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 			/* FIXME: USXGMII is not supported yet */
 			/* __set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_USXGMII, supported); */
 
+			*default_interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_10GBASER;
+
 			config->mac_capabilities |= MAC_2500FD | MAC_5000FD |
 				MAC_10000FD;
 		}
@@ -824,7 +859,8 @@ static void mv88e6xxx_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
 {
 	struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds->priv;
 
-	chip->info->ops->phylink_get_caps(chip, port, config);
+	chip->info->ops->phylink_get_caps(chip, port, config,
+					  default_interface);
 
 	/* Internal ports need GMII for PHYLIB */
 	if (mv88e6xxx_phy_is_internal(ds, port))
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h
index e693154cf803..4518c17c1b9b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h
@@ -643,7 +643,8 @@ struct mv88e6xxx_ops {
 
 	/* Phylink */
 	void (*phylink_get_caps)(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-				 struct phylink_config *config);
+				 struct phylink_config *config,
+				 phy_interface_t *default_interface);
 
 	/* Max Frame Size */
 	int (*set_max_frame_size)(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int mtu);
-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH net-next 4/6] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: report the default interface mode for the port

[Russell King (Oracle)]

Report the maximum speed interface mode for the port, or if we don't
have that information, the hardware configured interface mode for
the port.

This allows phylink to know which interface mode CPU and DSA ports
are operating, which will be necessary when we want to select the
maximum speed for the port (required for such ports without a PHY or
fixed-link specified in firmware.)

Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
---
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h |  3 +-
 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
index f98be98551ef..ccb35ea5d7b0 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
@@ -578,7 +578,8 @@ static const u8 mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[] = {
 };
 
 static void mv88e6095_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	u8 cmode = chip->ports[port].cmode;
 
@@ -588,23 +589,29 @@ static void mv88e6095_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 		__set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII, config->supported_interfaces);
 	} else {
 		if (cmode < ARRAY_SIZE(mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes) &&
-		    mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode])
+		    mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode]) {
 			__set_bit(mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode],
 				  config->supported_interfaces);
+			*default_interface =
+				mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode];
+		}
 
 		config->mac_capabilities |= MAC_1000FD;
 	}
 }
 
 static void mv88e6185_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	u8 cmode = chip->ports[port].cmode;
 
 	if (cmode < ARRAY_SIZE(mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes) &&
-	    mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode])
+	    mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode]) {
 		__set_bit(mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode],
 			  config->supported_interfaces);
+		*default_interface = mv88e6185_phy_interface_modes[cmode];
+	}
 
 	config->mac_capabilities = MAC_SYM_PAUSE | MAC_10 | MAC_100 |
 				   MAC_1000FD;
@@ -616,6 +623,7 @@ static const u8 mv88e6xxx_phy_interface_modes[] = {
 	[MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_GMII]		= PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII,
 	[MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_RMII_PHY]	= PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RMII,
 	[MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_RMII]		= PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RMII,
+	[MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_RGMII]	= PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII,
 	[MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_100BASEX]	= PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_100BASEX,
 	[MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_1000BASEX]	= PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_1000BASEX,
 	[MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_SGMII]	= PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_SGMII,
@@ -625,22 +633,32 @@ static const u8 mv88e6xxx_phy_interface_modes[] = {
 	 */
 };
 
-static void mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(u8 cmode, unsigned long *supported)
+static void mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(u8 cmode, unsigned long *supported,
+				      phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
+	phy_interface_t interface;
+
 	if (cmode < ARRAY_SIZE(mv88e6xxx_phy_interface_modes) &&
-	    mv88e6xxx_phy_interface_modes[cmode])
-		__set_bit(mv88e6xxx_phy_interface_modes[cmode], supported);
-	else if (cmode == MV88E6XXX_PORT_STS_CMODE_RGMII)
-		phy_interface_set_rgmii(supported);
+	    mv88e6xxx_phy_interface_modes[cmode]) {
+		interface = mv88e6xxx_phy_interface_modes[cmode];
+		if (interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII)
+			phy_interface_set_rgmii(supported);
+		else
+			__set_bit(interface, supported);
+		if (default_interface)
+			*default_interface = interface;
+	}
 }
 
 static void mv88e6250_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	unsigned long *supported = config->supported_interfaces;
 
 	/* Translate the default cmode */
-	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported);
+	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported,
+				  default_interface);
 
 	config->mac_capabilities = MAC_SYM_PAUSE | MAC_10 | MAC_100;
 }
@@ -676,13 +694,15 @@ static int mv88e6352_get_port4_serdes_cmode(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip)
 }
 
 static void mv88e6352_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	unsigned long *supported = config->supported_interfaces;
 	int err, cmode;
 
 	/* Translate the default cmode */
-	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported);
+	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported,
+				  default_interface);
 
 	config->mac_capabilities = MAC_SYM_PAUSE | MAC_10 | MAC_100 |
 				   MAC_1000FD;
@@ -702,19 +722,21 @@ static void mv88e6352_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 			dev_err(chip->dev, "p%d: failed to read serdes cmode\n",
 				port);
 		else
-			mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(cmode, supported);
+			mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(cmode, supported, NULL);
 unlock:
 		mv88e6xxx_reg_unlock(chip);
 	}
 }
 
 static void mv88e6341_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	unsigned long *supported = config->supported_interfaces;
 
 	/* Translate the default cmode */
-	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported);
+	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported,
+				  default_interface);
 
 	/* No ethtool bits for 200Mbps */
 	config->mac_capabilities = MAC_SYM_PAUSE | MAC_10 | MAC_100 |
@@ -726,17 +748,21 @@ static void mv88e6341_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 		__set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_1000BASEX, supported);
 		__set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_2500BASEX, supported);
 
+		*default_interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_2500BASEX;
+
 		config->mac_capabilities |= MAC_2500FD;
 	}
 }
 
 static void mv88e6390_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-				       struct phylink_config *config)
+				       struct phylink_config *config,
+				       phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	unsigned long *supported = config->supported_interfaces;
 
 	/* Translate the default cmode */
-	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported);
+	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported,
+				  default_interface);
 
 	/* No ethtool bits for 200Mbps */
 	config->mac_capabilities = MAC_SYM_PAUSE | MAC_10 | MAC_100 |
@@ -748,16 +774,19 @@ static void mv88e6390_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 		__set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_1000BASEX, supported);
 		__set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_2500BASEX, supported);
 
+		*default_interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_2500BASEX;
+
 		config->mac_capabilities |= MAC_2500FD;
 	}
 }
 
 static void mv88e6390x_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-					struct phylink_config *config)
+					struct phylink_config *config,
+					phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	unsigned long *supported = config->supported_interfaces;
 
-	mv88e6390_phylink_get_caps(chip, port, config);
+	mv88e6390_phylink_get_caps(chip, port, config, default_interface);
 
 	/* For the 6x90X, ports 2-7 can be in automedia mode.
 	 * (Note that 6x90 doesn't support RXAUI nor XAUI).
@@ -783,18 +812,22 @@ static void mv88e6390x_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 		__set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_XAUI, supported);
 		__set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RXAUI, supported);
 
+		*default_interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_XAUI;
+
 		config->mac_capabilities |= MAC_10000FD;
 	}
 }
 
 static void mv88e6393x_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-					struct phylink_config *config)
+					struct phylink_config *config,
+					phy_interface_t *default_interface)
 {
 	unsigned long *supported = config->supported_interfaces;
 	bool is_6191x =
 		chip->info->prod_num == MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6191X;
 
-	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported);
+	mv88e6xxx_translate_cmode(chip->ports[port].cmode, supported,
+				  default_interface);
 
 	config->mac_capabilities = MAC_SYM_PAUSE | MAC_10 | MAC_100 |
 				   MAC_1000FD;
@@ -812,6 +845,8 @@ static void mv88e6393x_phylink_get_caps(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 			/* FIXME: USXGMII is not supported yet */
 			/* __set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_USXGMII, supported); */
 
+			*default_interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_10GBASER;
+
 			config->mac_capabilities |= MAC_2500FD | MAC_5000FD |
 				MAC_10000FD;
 		}
@@ -824,7 +859,8 @@ static void mv88e6xxx_get_caps(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
 {
 	struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds->priv;
 
-	chip->info->ops->phylink_get_caps(chip, port, config);
+	chip->info->ops->phylink_get_caps(chip, port, config,
+					  default_interface);
 
 	/* Internal ports need GMII for PHYLIB */
 	if (mv88e6xxx_phy_is_internal(ds, port))
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h
index e693154cf803..4518c17c1b9b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h
@@ -643,7 +643,8 @@ struct mv88e6xxx_ops {
 
 	/* Phylink */
 	void (*phylink_get_caps)(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
-				 struct phylink_config *config);
+				 struct phylink_config *config,
+				 phy_interface_t *default_interface);
 
 	/* Max Frame Size */
 	int (*set_max_frame_size)(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int mtu);
-- 
2.30.2


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH net-next 5/6] net: dsa: use swnode fixed-link if using default params

[Russell King (Oracle)]

Create and use a swnode fixed-link specification for phylink if no
parameters are given in DT for a fixed-link. This allows phylink to
be used for "default" cases for DSA and CPU ports. Enable the use
of phylink in all cases for DSA and CPU ports.

Co-developed by Vladimir Oltean and myself.

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
---
 net/dsa/port.c | 152 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 139 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/dsa/port.c b/net/dsa/port.c
index 35b4e1f8dc05..abcf7899abf8 100644
--- a/net/dsa/port.c
+++ b/net/dsa/port.c
@@ -1521,10 +1521,131 @@ static const struct phylink_mac_ops dsa_port_phylink_mac_ops = {
 	.mac_link_up = dsa_port_phylink_mac_link_up,
 };
 
+static struct {
+	unsigned long mask;
+	int speed;
+	int duplex;
+} phylink_caps_params[] = {
+	{ MAC_400000FD, SPEED_400000, DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_200000FD, SPEED_200000, DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_100000FD, SPEED_100000, DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_56000FD,  SPEED_56000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_50000FD,  SPEED_50000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_40000FD,  SPEED_40000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_25000FD,  SPEED_25000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_20000FD,  SPEED_20000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_10000FD,  SPEED_10000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_5000FD,   SPEED_5000,   DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_2500FD,   SPEED_2500,   DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_1000FD,   SPEED_1000,   DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_100FD,    SPEED_100,    DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_10FD,     SPEED_10,     DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_1000HD,   SPEED_1000,   DUPLEX_HALF },
+	{ MAC_100HD,    SPEED_100,    DUPLEX_HALF },
+	{ MAC_10HD,     SPEED_10,     DUPLEX_HALF },
+};
+
+static int dsa_port_find_max_speed(unsigned long caps, int *speed, int *duplex)
+{
+	int i;
+
+	*speed = SPEED_UNKNOWN;
+	*duplex = DUPLEX_UNKNOWN;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(phylink_caps_params); i++) {
+		if (caps & phylink_caps_params[i].mask) {
+			*speed = phylink_caps_params[i].speed;
+			*duplex = phylink_caps_params[i].duplex;
+			break;
+		}
+	}
+
+	return *speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN ? -EINVAL : 0;
+}
+
+static void dsa_port_find_max_caps(struct dsa_port *dp,
+				   phy_interface_t *max_interface,
+				   unsigned long *max_caps)
+{
+	struct phylink_config *config = &dp->pl_config;
+	phy_interface_t interface;
+	unsigned long caps;
+
+	*max_interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
+	*max_caps = 0;
+
+	for_each_set_bit(interface, config->supported_interfaces,
+			 PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MAX) {
+		caps = config->mac_capabilities &
+		       phylink_interface_to_caps(interface);
+		if (caps > *max_caps) {
+			*max_caps = caps;
+			*max_interface = interface;
+		}
+	}
+}
+
+static struct fwnode_handle *dsa_port_get_fwnode(struct dsa_port *dp,
+						 phy_interface_t mode)
+{
+	struct property_entry fixed_link_props[3] = { };
+	struct property_entry port_props[3] = {};
+	struct fwnode_handle *fixed_link_fwnode;
+	struct fwnode_handle *new_port_fwnode;
+	struct device_node *dn = dp->dn;
+	struct device_node *phy_node;
+	int err, speed, duplex;
+	unsigned long caps;
+
+	phy_node = of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy-handle", 0);
+	of_node_put(phy_node);
+	if (phy_node || of_phy_is_fixed_link(dn))
+		/* Nothing broken, nothing to fix.
+		 * TODO: As discussed with Russell, maybe phylink could provide
+		 * a more comprehensive helper to determine what constitutes a
+		 * valid fwnode binding than this guerilla kludge.
+		 */
+		return of_fwnode_handle(dn);
+
+	if (mode == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA)
+		dsa_port_find_max_caps(dp, &mode, &caps);
+	else
+		caps = dp->pl_config.mac_capabilities &
+		       phylink_interface_to_caps(mode);
+
+	err = dsa_port_find_max_speed(caps, &speed, &duplex);
+	if (err)
+		return ERR_PTR(err);
+
+	fixed_link_props[0] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("speed", speed);
+	if (duplex == DUPLEX_FULL)
+		fixed_link_props[1] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("full-duplex");
+
+	port_props[0] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_STRING("phy-mode", phy_modes(mode));
+
+	new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
+	if (IS_ERR(new_port_fwnode))
+		return new_port_fwnode;
+
+	/* Node needs to be named so that phylink's call to
+	 * fwnode_get_named_child_node() finds it.
+	 */
+	fixed_link_fwnode = fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
+							      new_port_fwnode,
+							      "fixed-link");
+	if (IS_ERR(fixed_link_fwnode)) {
+		fwnode_remove_software_node(new_port_fwnode);
+		return fixed_link_fwnode;
+	}
+
+	return new_port_fwnode;
+}
+
 int dsa_port_phylink_create(struct dsa_port *dp)
 {
 	struct dsa_switch *ds = dp->ds;
 	phy_interface_t mode, def_mode;
+	struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
 	int err;
 
 	/* Presence of phylink_mac_link_state or phylink_mac_an_restart is
@@ -1552,8 +1673,19 @@ int dsa_port_phylink_create(struct dsa_port *dp)
 			mode = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
 	}
 
-	dp->pl = phylink_create(&dp->pl_config, of_fwnode_handle(dp->dn),
-				mode, &dsa_port_phylink_mac_ops);
+	fwnode = dsa_port_get_fwnode(dp, mode);
+	if (IS_ERR(fwnode)) {
+		dev_err(ds->dev,
+			"Failed to get fwnode for port %d: %pe\n",
+			dp->index, fwnode);
+		return PTR_ERR(fwnode);
+	}
+
+	dp->pl = phylink_create(&dp->pl_config, fwnode, mode,
+				&dsa_port_phylink_mac_ops);
+
+	fwnode_remove_software_node(fwnode);
+
 	if (IS_ERR(dp->pl)) {
 		pr_err("error creating PHYLINK: %ld\n", PTR_ERR(dp->pl));
 		return PTR_ERR(dp->pl);
@@ -1663,20 +1795,14 @@ static int dsa_port_phylink_register(struct dsa_port *dp)
 int dsa_port_link_register_of(struct dsa_port *dp)
 {
 	struct dsa_switch *ds = dp->ds;
-	struct device_node *phy_np;
 	int port = dp->index;
 
 	if (!ds->ops->adjust_link) {
-		phy_np = of_parse_phandle(dp->dn, "phy-handle", 0);
-		if (of_phy_is_fixed_link(dp->dn) || phy_np) {
-			if (ds->ops->phylink_mac_link_down)
-				ds->ops->phylink_mac_link_down(ds, port,
-					MLO_AN_FIXED, PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA);
-			of_node_put(phy_np);
-			return dsa_port_phylink_register(dp);
-		}
-		of_node_put(phy_np);
-		return 0;
+		if (ds->ops->phylink_mac_link_down)
+			ds->ops->phylink_mac_link_down(ds, port, MLO_AN_FIXED,
+						       PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA);
+
+		return dsa_port_phylink_register(dp);
 	}
 
 	dev_warn(ds->dev,
-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH net-next 5/6] net: dsa: use swnode fixed-link if using default params

[Russell King (Oracle)]

Create and use a swnode fixed-link specification for phylink if no
parameters are given in DT for a fixed-link. This allows phylink to
be used for "default" cases for DSA and CPU ports. Enable the use
of phylink in all cases for DSA and CPU ports.

Co-developed by Vladimir Oltean and myself.

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
---
 net/dsa/port.c | 152 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 139 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/dsa/port.c b/net/dsa/port.c
index 35b4e1f8dc05..abcf7899abf8 100644
--- a/net/dsa/port.c
+++ b/net/dsa/port.c
@@ -1521,10 +1521,131 @@ static const struct phylink_mac_ops dsa_port_phylink_mac_ops = {
 	.mac_link_up = dsa_port_phylink_mac_link_up,
 };
 
+static struct {
+	unsigned long mask;
+	int speed;
+	int duplex;
+} phylink_caps_params[] = {
+	{ MAC_400000FD, SPEED_400000, DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_200000FD, SPEED_200000, DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_100000FD, SPEED_100000, DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_56000FD,  SPEED_56000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_50000FD,  SPEED_50000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_40000FD,  SPEED_40000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_25000FD,  SPEED_25000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_20000FD,  SPEED_20000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_10000FD,  SPEED_10000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_5000FD,   SPEED_5000,   DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_2500FD,   SPEED_2500,   DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_1000FD,   SPEED_1000,   DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_100FD,    SPEED_100,    DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_10FD,     SPEED_10,     DUPLEX_FULL },
+	{ MAC_1000HD,   SPEED_1000,   DUPLEX_HALF },
+	{ MAC_100HD,    SPEED_100,    DUPLEX_HALF },
+	{ MAC_10HD,     SPEED_10,     DUPLEX_HALF },
+};
+
+static int dsa_port_find_max_speed(unsigned long caps, int *speed, int *duplex)
+{
+	int i;
+
+	*speed = SPEED_UNKNOWN;
+	*duplex = DUPLEX_UNKNOWN;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(phylink_caps_params); i++) {
+		if (caps & phylink_caps_params[i].mask) {
+			*speed = phylink_caps_params[i].speed;
+			*duplex = phylink_caps_params[i].duplex;
+			break;
+		}
+	}
+
+	return *speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN ? -EINVAL : 0;
+}
+
+static void dsa_port_find_max_caps(struct dsa_port *dp,
+				   phy_interface_t *max_interface,
+				   unsigned long *max_caps)
+{
+	struct phylink_config *config = &dp->pl_config;
+	phy_interface_t interface;
+	unsigned long caps;
+
+	*max_interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
+	*max_caps = 0;
+
+	for_each_set_bit(interface, config->supported_interfaces,
+			 PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MAX) {
+		caps = config->mac_capabilities &
+		       phylink_interface_to_caps(interface);
+		if (caps > *max_caps) {
+			*max_caps = caps;
+			*max_interface = interface;
+		}
+	}
+}
+
+static struct fwnode_handle *dsa_port_get_fwnode(struct dsa_port *dp,
+						 phy_interface_t mode)
+{
+	struct property_entry fixed_link_props[3] = { };
+	struct property_entry port_props[3] = {};
+	struct fwnode_handle *fixed_link_fwnode;
+	struct fwnode_handle *new_port_fwnode;
+	struct device_node *dn = dp->dn;
+	struct device_node *phy_node;
+	int err, speed, duplex;
+	unsigned long caps;
+
+	phy_node = of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy-handle", 0);
+	of_node_put(phy_node);
+	if (phy_node || of_phy_is_fixed_link(dn))
+		/* Nothing broken, nothing to fix.
+		 * TODO: As discussed with Russell, maybe phylink could provide
+		 * a more comprehensive helper to determine what constitutes a
+		 * valid fwnode binding than this guerilla kludge.
+		 */
+		return of_fwnode_handle(dn);
+
+	if (mode == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA)
+		dsa_port_find_max_caps(dp, &mode, &caps);
+	else
+		caps = dp->pl_config.mac_capabilities &
+		       phylink_interface_to_caps(mode);
+
+	err = dsa_port_find_max_speed(caps, &speed, &duplex);
+	if (err)
+		return ERR_PTR(err);
+
+	fixed_link_props[0] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("speed", speed);
+	if (duplex == DUPLEX_FULL)
+		fixed_link_props[1] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("full-duplex");
+
+	port_props[0] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_STRING("phy-mode", phy_modes(mode));
+
+	new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
+	if (IS_ERR(new_port_fwnode))
+		return new_port_fwnode;
+
+	/* Node needs to be named so that phylink's call to
+	 * fwnode_get_named_child_node() finds it.
+	 */
+	fixed_link_fwnode = fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
+							      new_port_fwnode,
+							      "fixed-link");
+	if (IS_ERR(fixed_link_fwnode)) {
+		fwnode_remove_software_node(new_port_fwnode);
+		return fixed_link_fwnode;
+	}
+
+	return new_port_fwnode;
+}
+
 int dsa_port_phylink_create(struct dsa_port *dp)
 {
 	struct dsa_switch *ds = dp->ds;
 	phy_interface_t mode, def_mode;
+	struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
 	int err;
 
 	/* Presence of phylink_mac_link_state or phylink_mac_an_restart is
@@ -1552,8 +1673,19 @@ int dsa_port_phylink_create(struct dsa_port *dp)
 			mode = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
 	}
 
-	dp->pl = phylink_create(&dp->pl_config, of_fwnode_handle(dp->dn),
-				mode, &dsa_port_phylink_mac_ops);
+	fwnode = dsa_port_get_fwnode(dp, mode);
+	if (IS_ERR(fwnode)) {
+		dev_err(ds->dev,
+			"Failed to get fwnode for port %d: %pe\n",
+			dp->index, fwnode);
+		return PTR_ERR(fwnode);
+	}
+
+	dp->pl = phylink_create(&dp->pl_config, fwnode, mode,
+				&dsa_port_phylink_mac_ops);
+
+	fwnode_remove_software_node(fwnode);
+
 	if (IS_ERR(dp->pl)) {
 		pr_err("error creating PHYLINK: %ld\n", PTR_ERR(dp->pl));
 		return PTR_ERR(dp->pl);
@@ -1663,20 +1795,14 @@ static int dsa_port_phylink_register(struct dsa_port *dp)
 int dsa_port_link_register_of(struct dsa_port *dp)
 {
 	struct dsa_switch *ds = dp->ds;
-	struct device_node *phy_np;
 	int port = dp->index;
 
 	if (!ds->ops->adjust_link) {
-		phy_np = of_parse_phandle(dp->dn, "phy-handle", 0);
-		if (of_phy_is_fixed_link(dp->dn) || phy_np) {
-			if (ds->ops->phylink_mac_link_down)
-				ds->ops->phylink_mac_link_down(ds, port,
-					MLO_AN_FIXED, PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA);
-			of_node_put(phy_np);
-			return dsa_port_phylink_register(dp);
-		}
-		of_node_put(phy_np);
-		return 0;
+		if (ds->ops->phylink_mac_link_down)
+			ds->ops->phylink_mac_link_down(ds, port, MLO_AN_FIXED,
+						       PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA);
+
+		return dsa_port_phylink_register(dp);
 	}
 
 	dev_warn(ds->dev,
-- 
2.30.2


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH net-next 6/6] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: remove handling for DSA and CPU ports

[Russell King (Oracle)]

As we now always use a fixed-link for DSA and CPU ports, we no longer
need the hack in the Marvell code to make this work. Remove it.

This is especially important with the conversion of DSA drivers to
phylink_pcs, as the PCS code only gets called if we are using
phylink for the port.

Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
---
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c | 49 +++-----------------------------
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h |  3 --
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c | 32 ---------------------
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.h |  5 ----
 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
index ccb35ea5d7b0..01dff8d46642 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
@@ -3314,9 +3314,8 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_setup_port(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port)
 {
 	struct device_node *phy_handle = NULL;
 	struct dsa_switch *ds = chip->ds;
-	phy_interface_t mode;
 	struct dsa_port *dp;
-	int tx_amp, speed;
+	int tx_amp;
 	int err;
 	u16 reg;
 
@@ -3325,40 +3324,9 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_setup_port(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port)
 
 	dp = dsa_to_port(ds, port);
 
-	/* MAC Forcing register: don't force link, speed, duplex or flow control
-	 * state to any particular values on physical ports, but force the CPU
-	 * port and all DSA ports to their maximum bandwidth and full duplex.
-	 */
-	if (dsa_is_cpu_port(ds, port) || dsa_is_dsa_port(ds, port)) {
-		unsigned long caps = dp->pl_config.mac_capabilities;
-
-		if (chip->info->ops->port_max_speed_mode)
-			mode = chip->info->ops->port_max_speed_mode(port);
-		else
-			mode = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
-
-		if (caps & MAC_10000FD)
-			speed = SPEED_10000;
-		else if (caps & MAC_5000FD)
-			speed = SPEED_5000;
-		else if (caps & MAC_2500FD)
-			speed = SPEED_2500;
-		else if (caps & MAC_1000)
-			speed = SPEED_1000;
-		else if (caps & MAC_100)
-			speed = SPEED_100;
-		else
-			speed = SPEED_10;
-
-		err = mv88e6xxx_port_setup_mac(chip, port, LINK_FORCED_UP,
-					       speed, DUPLEX_FULL,
-					       PAUSE_OFF, mode);
-	} else {
-		err = mv88e6xxx_port_setup_mac(chip, port, LINK_UNFORCED,
-					       SPEED_UNFORCED, DUPLEX_UNFORCED,
-					       PAUSE_ON,
-					       PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA);
-	}
+	err = mv88e6xxx_port_setup_mac(chip, port, LINK_UNFORCED,
+				       SPEED_UNFORCED, DUPLEX_UNFORCED,
+				       PAUSE_ON, PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA);
 	if (err)
 		return err;
 
@@ -4306,7 +4274,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6141_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6341_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6341_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6095_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6352_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
@@ -4699,7 +4666,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6190_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6390_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6390_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6390_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6352_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
@@ -4762,7 +4728,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6190x_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6390x_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6390x_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6390_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6352_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
@@ -4825,7 +4790,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6191_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6390_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6390_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6390_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
 	.port_set_ucast_flood = mv88e6352_port_set_ucast_flood,
@@ -4990,7 +4954,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6290_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6390_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6390_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6390_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6352_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
@@ -5141,7 +5104,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6341_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6341_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6341_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6095_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6352_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
@@ -5364,7 +5326,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6390_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6390_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6390_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6390_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6352_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
@@ -5431,7 +5392,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6390x_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6390x_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6390x_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6390_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6352_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
@@ -5497,7 +5457,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6393x_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6393x_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6393x_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6390_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6393x_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h
index 4518c17c1b9b..a3b7cfe3eb23 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h
@@ -502,9 +502,6 @@ struct mv88e6xxx_ops {
 	int (*port_set_speed_duplex)(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 				     int speed, int duplex);
 
-	/* What interface mode should be used for maximum speed? */
-	phy_interface_t (*port_max_speed_mode)(int port);
-
 	int (*port_tag_remap)(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port);
 
 	int (*port_set_policy)(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c
index 90c55f23b7c9..47e21f3c437a 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c
@@ -333,14 +333,6 @@ int mv88e6341_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 					       duplex);
 }
 
-phy_interface_t mv88e6341_port_max_speed_mode(int port)
-{
-	if (port == 5)
-		return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_2500BASEX;
-
-	return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
-}
-
 /* Support 10, 100, 200, 1000 Mbps (e.g. 88E6352 family) */
 int mv88e6352_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 				    int speed, int duplex)
@@ -372,14 +364,6 @@ int mv88e6390_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 					       duplex);
 }
 
-phy_interface_t mv88e6390_port_max_speed_mode(int port)
-{
-	if (port == 9 || port == 10)
-		return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_2500BASEX;
-
-	return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
-}
-
 /* Support 10, 100, 200, 1000, 2500, 10000 Mbps (e.g. 88E6190X) */
 int mv88e6390x_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 				     int speed, int duplex)
@@ -394,14 +378,6 @@ int mv88e6390x_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 					       duplex);
 }
 
-phy_interface_t mv88e6390x_port_max_speed_mode(int port)
-{
-	if (port == 9 || port == 10)
-		return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_XAUI;
-
-	return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
-}
-
 /* Support 10, 100, 200, 1000, 2500, 5000, 10000 Mbps (e.g. 88E6393X)
  * Function mv88e6xxx_port_set_speed_duplex() can't be used as the register
  * values for speeds 2500 & 5000 conflict.
@@ -491,14 +467,6 @@ int mv88e6393x_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 	return 0;
 }
 
-phy_interface_t mv88e6393x_port_max_speed_mode(int port)
-{
-	if (port == 0 || port == 9 || port == 10)
-		return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_10GBASER;
-
-	return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
-}
-
 static int mv88e6xxx_port_set_cmode(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 				    phy_interface_t mode, bool force)
 {
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.h b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.h
index cb04243f37c1..2a5741a44e97 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.h
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.h
@@ -357,11 +357,6 @@ int mv88e6390x_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 int mv88e6393x_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 				     int speed, int duplex);
 
-phy_interface_t mv88e6341_port_max_speed_mode(int port);
-phy_interface_t mv88e6390_port_max_speed_mode(int port);
-phy_interface_t mv88e6390x_port_max_speed_mode(int port);
-phy_interface_t mv88e6393x_port_max_speed_mode(int port);
-
 int mv88e6xxx_port_set_state(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port, u8 state);
 
 int mv88e6xxx_port_set_vlan_map(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port, u16 map);
-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH net-next 6/6] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: remove handling for DSA and CPU ports

[Russell King (Oracle)]

As we now always use a fixed-link for DSA and CPU ports, we no longer
need the hack in the Marvell code to make this work. Remove it.

This is especially important with the conversion of DSA drivers to
phylink_pcs, as the PCS code only gets called if we are using
phylink for the port.

Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
---
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c | 49 +++-----------------------------
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h |  3 --
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c | 32 ---------------------
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.h |  5 ----
 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
index ccb35ea5d7b0..01dff8d46642 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
@@ -3314,9 +3314,8 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_setup_port(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port)
 {
 	struct device_node *phy_handle = NULL;
 	struct dsa_switch *ds = chip->ds;
-	phy_interface_t mode;
 	struct dsa_port *dp;
-	int tx_amp, speed;
+	int tx_amp;
 	int err;
 	u16 reg;
 
@@ -3325,40 +3324,9 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_setup_port(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port)
 
 	dp = dsa_to_port(ds, port);
 
-	/* MAC Forcing register: don't force link, speed, duplex or flow control
-	 * state to any particular values on physical ports, but force the CPU
-	 * port and all DSA ports to their maximum bandwidth and full duplex.
-	 */
-	if (dsa_is_cpu_port(ds, port) || dsa_is_dsa_port(ds, port)) {
-		unsigned long caps = dp->pl_config.mac_capabilities;
-
-		if (chip->info->ops->port_max_speed_mode)
-			mode = chip->info->ops->port_max_speed_mode(port);
-		else
-			mode = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
-
-		if (caps & MAC_10000FD)
-			speed = SPEED_10000;
-		else if (caps & MAC_5000FD)
-			speed = SPEED_5000;
-		else if (caps & MAC_2500FD)
-			speed = SPEED_2500;
-		else if (caps & MAC_1000)
-			speed = SPEED_1000;
-		else if (caps & MAC_100)
-			speed = SPEED_100;
-		else
-			speed = SPEED_10;
-
-		err = mv88e6xxx_port_setup_mac(chip, port, LINK_FORCED_UP,
-					       speed, DUPLEX_FULL,
-					       PAUSE_OFF, mode);
-	} else {
-		err = mv88e6xxx_port_setup_mac(chip, port, LINK_UNFORCED,
-					       SPEED_UNFORCED, DUPLEX_UNFORCED,
-					       PAUSE_ON,
-					       PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA);
-	}
+	err = mv88e6xxx_port_setup_mac(chip, port, LINK_UNFORCED,
+				       SPEED_UNFORCED, DUPLEX_UNFORCED,
+				       PAUSE_ON, PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA);
 	if (err)
 		return err;
 
@@ -4306,7 +4274,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6141_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6341_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6341_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6095_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6352_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
@@ -4699,7 +4666,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6190_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6390_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6390_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6390_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6352_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
@@ -4762,7 +4728,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6190x_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6390x_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6390x_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6390_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6352_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
@@ -4825,7 +4790,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6191_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6390_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6390_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6390_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
 	.port_set_ucast_flood = mv88e6352_port_set_ucast_flood,
@@ -4990,7 +4954,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6290_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6390_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6390_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6390_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6352_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
@@ -5141,7 +5104,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6341_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6341_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6341_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6095_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6352_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
@@ -5364,7 +5326,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6390_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6390_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6390_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6390_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6352_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
@@ -5431,7 +5392,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6390x_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6390x_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6390x_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6390_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6352_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
@@ -5497,7 +5457,6 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6393x_ops = {
 	.port_sync_link = mv88e6xxx_port_sync_link,
 	.port_set_rgmii_delay = mv88e6390_port_set_rgmii_delay,
 	.port_set_speed_duplex = mv88e6393x_port_set_speed_duplex,
-	.port_max_speed_mode = mv88e6393x_port_max_speed_mode,
 	.port_tag_remap = mv88e6390_port_tag_remap,
 	.port_set_policy = mv88e6393x_port_set_policy,
 	.port_set_frame_mode = mv88e6351_port_set_frame_mode,
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h
index 4518c17c1b9b..a3b7cfe3eb23 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h
@@ -502,9 +502,6 @@ struct mv88e6xxx_ops {
 	int (*port_set_speed_duplex)(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 				     int speed, int duplex);
 
-	/* What interface mode should be used for maximum speed? */
-	phy_interface_t (*port_max_speed_mode)(int port);
-
 	int (*port_tag_remap)(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port);
 
 	int (*port_set_policy)(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c
index 90c55f23b7c9..47e21f3c437a 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c
@@ -333,14 +333,6 @@ int mv88e6341_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 					       duplex);
 }
 
-phy_interface_t mv88e6341_port_max_speed_mode(int port)
-{
-	if (port == 5)
-		return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_2500BASEX;
-
-	return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
-}
-
 /* Support 10, 100, 200, 1000 Mbps (e.g. 88E6352 family) */
 int mv88e6352_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 				    int speed, int duplex)
@@ -372,14 +364,6 @@ int mv88e6390_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 					       duplex);
 }
 
-phy_interface_t mv88e6390_port_max_speed_mode(int port)
-{
-	if (port == 9 || port == 10)
-		return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_2500BASEX;
-
-	return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
-}
-
 /* Support 10, 100, 200, 1000, 2500, 10000 Mbps (e.g. 88E6190X) */
 int mv88e6390x_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 				     int speed, int duplex)
@@ -394,14 +378,6 @@ int mv88e6390x_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 					       duplex);
 }
 
-phy_interface_t mv88e6390x_port_max_speed_mode(int port)
-{
-	if (port == 9 || port == 10)
-		return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_XAUI;
-
-	return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
-}
-
 /* Support 10, 100, 200, 1000, 2500, 5000, 10000 Mbps (e.g. 88E6393X)
  * Function mv88e6xxx_port_set_speed_duplex() can't be used as the register
  * values for speeds 2500 & 5000 conflict.
@@ -491,14 +467,6 @@ int mv88e6393x_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 	return 0;
 }
 
-phy_interface_t mv88e6393x_port_max_speed_mode(int port)
-{
-	if (port == 0 || port == 9 || port == 10)
-		return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_10GBASER;
-
-	return PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
-}
-
 static int mv88e6xxx_port_set_cmode(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 				    phy_interface_t mode, bool force)
 {
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.h b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.h
index cb04243f37c1..2a5741a44e97 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.h
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.h
@@ -357,11 +357,6 @@ int mv88e6390x_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 int mv88e6393x_port_set_speed_duplex(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
 				     int speed, int duplex);
 
-phy_interface_t mv88e6341_port_max_speed_mode(int port);
-phy_interface_t mv88e6390_port_max_speed_mode(int port);
-phy_interface_t mv88e6390x_port_max_speed_mode(int port);
-phy_interface_t mv88e6393x_port_max_speed_mode(int port);
-
 int mv88e6xxx_port_set_state(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port, u8 state);
 
 int mv88e6xxx_port_set_vlan_map(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port, u16 map);
-- 
2.30.2


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Vladimir Oltean]

Hi Russell,

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:00:59PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is a re-hash of the previous RFC series, this time using the
> suggestion from Vladimir to create a swnode based fixed-link
> specifier.
> 
> Most of the changes are to DSA and phylink code from the previous
> series. I've tested on my Clearfog (which has just one Marvell DSA
> switch) and it works there - also tested without the fixed-link
> specified in DT.

I had some comments I wanted to leave on the previous RFC patch set
(which in turn is essentially identical to this one, hence they still
apply), but I held off because I thought you were waiting for some
feedback from Andrew. Has something changed?

I'm going to leave my comments anyway now.

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Vladimir Oltean]

Hi Russell,

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:00:59PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is a re-hash of the previous RFC series, this time using the
> suggestion from Vladimir to create a swnode based fixed-link
> specifier.
> 
> Most of the changes are to DSA and phylink code from the previous
> series. I've tested on my Clearfog (which has just one Marvell DSA
> switch) and it works there - also tested without the fixed-link
> specified in DT.

I had some comments I wanted to leave on the previous RFC patch set
(which in turn is essentially identical to this one, hence they still
apply), but I held off because I thought you were waiting for some
feedback from Andrew. Has something changed?

I'm going to leave my comments anyway now.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:37PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> DSA port bindings allow for an optional phy interface mode. When an
> interface mode is not specified, DSA uses the NA interface mode type.
> 
> However, phylink needs to know the parameters of the link, and this
> will become especially important when using phylink for ports that
> are devoid of all properties except the required "reg" property, so
> that phylink can select the maximum supported link settings. Without
> knowing the interface mode, phylink can't truely know the maximum
> link speed.
> 
> Update the prototype for the phylink_get_caps method to allow drivers
> to report this information back to DSA, and update all DSA
> implementations function declarations to cater for this change. No
> code is added to the implementations.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
> ---
(...)
> diff --git a/include/net/dsa.h b/include/net/dsa.h
> index b902b31bebce..7c6870d2c607 100644
> --- a/include/net/dsa.h
> +++ b/include/net/dsa.h
> @@ -852,7 +852,8 @@ struct dsa_switch_ops {
>  	 * PHYLINK integration
>  	 */
>  	void	(*phylink_get_caps)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> -				    struct phylink_config *config);
> +				    struct phylink_config *config,
> +				    phy_interface_t *default_interface);

I would prefer having a dedicated void (*port_max_speed_interface),
because the post-phylink DSA drivers (which are not few) will generally
not need to concern themselves with implementing this, and I don't want
driver writers to think they need to populate every parameter they see
in phylink_get_caps. So the new function needs to be documented
appropriately (specify who needs and who does not need to implement it,
on which ports it will be called, etc).

In addition, if we have a dedicated ds->ops->port_max_speed_interface(),
we can do a better job of avoiding breakage with this patch set, since
if DSA cannot find a valid phylink fwnode, AND there is no
port_max_speed_interface() callback for this driver, DSA can still
preserve the current logic of not putting the port down, and not
registering it with phylink. That can be accompanied by a dev_warn() to
state that the CPU/DSA port isn't registered with phylink, please
implement port_max_speed_interface() to address that.

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:37PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> DSA port bindings allow for an optional phy interface mode. When an
> interface mode is not specified, DSA uses the NA interface mode type.
> 
> However, phylink needs to know the parameters of the link, and this
> will become especially important when using phylink for ports that
> are devoid of all properties except the required "reg" property, so
> that phylink can select the maximum supported link settings. Without
> knowing the interface mode, phylink can't truely know the maximum
> link speed.
> 
> Update the prototype for the phylink_get_caps method to allow drivers
> to report this information back to DSA, and update all DSA
> implementations function declarations to cater for this change. No
> code is added to the implementations.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
> ---
(...)
> diff --git a/include/net/dsa.h b/include/net/dsa.h
> index b902b31bebce..7c6870d2c607 100644
> --- a/include/net/dsa.h
> +++ b/include/net/dsa.h
> @@ -852,7 +852,8 @@ struct dsa_switch_ops {
>  	 * PHYLINK integration
>  	 */
>  	void	(*phylink_get_caps)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> -				    struct phylink_config *config);
> +				    struct phylink_config *config,
> +				    phy_interface_t *default_interface);

I would prefer having a dedicated void (*port_max_speed_interface),
because the post-phylink DSA drivers (which are not few) will generally
not need to concern themselves with implementing this, and I don't want
driver writers to think they need to populate every parameter they see
in phylink_get_caps. So the new function needs to be documented
appropriately (specify who needs and who does not need to implement it,
on which ports it will be called, etc).

In addition, if we have a dedicated ds->ops->port_max_speed_interface(),
we can do a better job of avoiding breakage with this patch set, since
if DSA cannot find a valid phylink fwnode, AND there is no
port_max_speed_interface() callback for this driver, DSA can still
preserve the current logic of not putting the port down, and not
registering it with phylink. That can be accompanied by a dev_warn() to
state that the CPU/DSA port isn't registered with phylink, please
implement port_max_speed_interface() to address that.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> 
> Allow a named software node to be created, which is needed for software
> nodes for a fixed-link specification for DSA.

In general I have no objection, but what's worrying me is a possibility to
collide in namespace. With the current code the name is generated based on
unique IDs, how can we make this one more robust?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> 
> Allow a named software node to be created, which is needed for software
> nodes for a fixed-link specification for DSA.

In general I have no objection, but what's worrying me is a possibility to
collide in namespace. With the current code the name is generated based on
unique IDs, how can we make this one more robust?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] net: dsa: use swnode fixed-link if using default params

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:48PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> Create and use a swnode fixed-link specification for phylink if no
> parameters are given in DT for a fixed-link. This allows phylink to
> be used for "default" cases for DSA and CPU ports. Enable the use
> of phylink in all cases for DSA and CPU ports.

> Co-developed by Vladimir Oltean and myself.

Why not to use

  Co-developed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>

?

> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>

...

> +static struct {
> +	unsigned long mask;
> +	int speed;
> +	int duplex;
> +} phylink_caps_params[] = {
> +	{ MAC_400000FD, SPEED_400000, DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_200000FD, SPEED_200000, DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_100000FD, SPEED_100000, DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_56000FD,  SPEED_56000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_50000FD,  SPEED_50000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_40000FD,  SPEED_40000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_25000FD,  SPEED_25000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_20000FD,  SPEED_20000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_10000FD,  SPEED_10000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_5000FD,   SPEED_5000,   DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_2500FD,   SPEED_2500,   DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_1000FD,   SPEED_1000,   DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_100FD,    SPEED_100,    DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_10FD,     SPEED_10,     DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_1000HD,   SPEED_1000,   DUPLEX_HALF },
> +	{ MAC_100HD,    SPEED_100,    DUPLEX_HALF },
> +	{ MAC_10HD,     SPEED_10,     DUPLEX_HALF },
> +};
> +
> +static int dsa_port_find_max_speed(unsigned long caps, int *speed, int *duplex)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	*speed = SPEED_UNKNOWN;
> +	*duplex = DUPLEX_UNKNOWN;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(phylink_caps_params); i++) {
> +		if (caps & phylink_caps_params[i].mask) {
> +			*speed = phylink_caps_params[i].speed;
> +			*duplex = phylink_caps_params[i].duplex;

> +			break;

With the below check it's way too protective programming.

			return 0;

> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return *speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN ? -EINVAL : 0;

	return -EINVAL;

> +}

...

> +static struct fwnode_handle *dsa_port_get_fwnode(struct dsa_port *dp,
> +						 phy_interface_t mode)
> +{

> +	struct property_entry fixed_link_props[3] = { };
> +	struct property_entry port_props[3] = {};

A bit of consistency in the assignments?

Also it seems you are using up to 2 for the first one and only 1 in the second
one. IIUC it requires a terminator entry, so it means 3 and 2. Do we really
need 3 in the second case?

> +	struct fwnode_handle *fixed_link_fwnode;
> +	struct fwnode_handle *new_port_fwnode;
> +	struct device_node *dn = dp->dn;
> +	struct device_node *phy_node;
> +	int err, speed, duplex;
> +	unsigned long caps;
> +
> +	phy_node = of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy-handle", 0);

fwnode in the name, why not to use fwnode APIs?

	fwnode_find_reference();

> +	of_node_put(phy_node);
> +	if (phy_node || of_phy_is_fixed_link(dn))
> +		/* Nothing broken, nothing to fix.
> +		 * TODO: As discussed with Russell, maybe phylink could provide
> +		 * a more comprehensive helper to determine what constitutes a
> +		 * valid fwnode binding than this guerilla kludge.
> +		 */
> +		return of_fwnode_handle(dn);
> +
> +	if (mode == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA)
> +		dsa_port_find_max_caps(dp, &mode, &caps);
> +	else
> +		caps = dp->pl_config.mac_capabilities &
> +		       phylink_interface_to_caps(mode);
> +
> +	err = dsa_port_find_max_speed(caps, &speed, &duplex);
> +	if (err)
> +		return ERR_PTR(err);
> +
> +	fixed_link_props[0] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("speed", speed);
> +	if (duplex == DUPLEX_FULL)
> +		fixed_link_props[1] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("full-duplex");
> +
> +	port_props[0] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_STRING("phy-mode", phy_modes(mode));
> +
> +	new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
> +	if (IS_ERR(new_port_fwnode))
> +		return new_port_fwnode;
> +
> +	/* Node needs to be named so that phylink's call to
> +	 * fwnode_get_named_child_node() finds it.
> +	 */
> +	fixed_link_fwnode = fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
> +							      new_port_fwnode,
> +							      "fixed-link");
> +	if (IS_ERR(fixed_link_fwnode)) {
> +		fwnode_remove_software_node(new_port_fwnode);
> +		return fixed_link_fwnode;
> +	}
> +
> +	return new_port_fwnode;
> +}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] net: dsa: use swnode fixed-link if using default params

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:48PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> Create and use a swnode fixed-link specification for phylink if no
> parameters are given in DT for a fixed-link. This allows phylink to
> be used for "default" cases for DSA and CPU ports. Enable the use
> of phylink in all cases for DSA and CPU ports.

> Co-developed by Vladimir Oltean and myself.

Why not to use

  Co-developed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>

?

> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>

...

> +static struct {
> +	unsigned long mask;
> +	int speed;
> +	int duplex;
> +} phylink_caps_params[] = {
> +	{ MAC_400000FD, SPEED_400000, DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_200000FD, SPEED_200000, DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_100000FD, SPEED_100000, DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_56000FD,  SPEED_56000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_50000FD,  SPEED_50000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_40000FD,  SPEED_40000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_25000FD,  SPEED_25000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_20000FD,  SPEED_20000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_10000FD,  SPEED_10000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_5000FD,   SPEED_5000,   DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_2500FD,   SPEED_2500,   DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_1000FD,   SPEED_1000,   DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_100FD,    SPEED_100,    DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_10FD,     SPEED_10,     DUPLEX_FULL },
> +	{ MAC_1000HD,   SPEED_1000,   DUPLEX_HALF },
> +	{ MAC_100HD,    SPEED_100,    DUPLEX_HALF },
> +	{ MAC_10HD,     SPEED_10,     DUPLEX_HALF },
> +};
> +
> +static int dsa_port_find_max_speed(unsigned long caps, int *speed, int *duplex)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	*speed = SPEED_UNKNOWN;
> +	*duplex = DUPLEX_UNKNOWN;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(phylink_caps_params); i++) {
> +		if (caps & phylink_caps_params[i].mask) {
> +			*speed = phylink_caps_params[i].speed;
> +			*duplex = phylink_caps_params[i].duplex;

> +			break;

With the below check it's way too protective programming.

			return 0;

> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return *speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN ? -EINVAL : 0;

	return -EINVAL;

> +}

...

> +static struct fwnode_handle *dsa_port_get_fwnode(struct dsa_port *dp,
> +						 phy_interface_t mode)
> +{

> +	struct property_entry fixed_link_props[3] = { };
> +	struct property_entry port_props[3] = {};

A bit of consistency in the assignments?

Also it seems you are using up to 2 for the first one and only 1 in the second
one. IIUC it requires a terminator entry, so it means 3 and 2. Do we really
need 3 in the second case?

> +	struct fwnode_handle *fixed_link_fwnode;
> +	struct fwnode_handle *new_port_fwnode;
> +	struct device_node *dn = dp->dn;
> +	struct device_node *phy_node;
> +	int err, speed, duplex;
> +	unsigned long caps;
> +
> +	phy_node = of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy-handle", 0);

fwnode in the name, why not to use fwnode APIs?

	fwnode_find_reference();

> +	of_node_put(phy_node);
> +	if (phy_node || of_phy_is_fixed_link(dn))
> +		/* Nothing broken, nothing to fix.
> +		 * TODO: As discussed with Russell, maybe phylink could provide
> +		 * a more comprehensive helper to determine what constitutes a
> +		 * valid fwnode binding than this guerilla kludge.
> +		 */
> +		return of_fwnode_handle(dn);
> +
> +	if (mode == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA)
> +		dsa_port_find_max_caps(dp, &mode, &caps);
> +	else
> +		caps = dp->pl_config.mac_capabilities &
> +		       phylink_interface_to_caps(mode);
> +
> +	err = dsa_port_find_max_speed(caps, &speed, &duplex);
> +	if (err)
> +		return ERR_PTR(err);
> +
> +	fixed_link_props[0] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("speed", speed);
> +	if (duplex == DUPLEX_FULL)
> +		fixed_link_props[1] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("full-duplex");
> +
> +	port_props[0] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_STRING("phy-mode", phy_modes(mode));
> +
> +	new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
> +	if (IS_ERR(new_port_fwnode))
> +		return new_port_fwnode;
> +
> +	/* Node needs to be named so that phylink's call to
> +	 * fwnode_get_named_child_node() finds it.
> +	 */
> +	fixed_link_fwnode = fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
> +							      new_port_fwnode,
> +							      "fixed-link");
> +	if (IS_ERR(fixed_link_fwnode)) {
> +		fwnode_remove_software_node(new_port_fwnode);
> +		return fixed_link_fwnode;
> +	}
> +
> +	return new_port_fwnode;
> +}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:57:55PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > 
> > Allow a named software node to be created, which is needed for software
> > nodes for a fixed-link specification for DSA.
> 
> In general I have no objection, but what's worrying me is a possibility to
> collide in namespace. With the current code the name is generated based on
> unique IDs, how can we make this one more robust?

Could you be more clear about the exact concern?

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:57:55PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > 
> > Allow a named software node to be created, which is needed for software
> > nodes for a fixed-link specification for DSA.
> 
> In general I have no objection, but what's worrying me is a possibility to
> collide in namespace. With the current code the name is generated based on
> unique IDs, how can we make this one more robust?

Could you be more clear about the exact concern?

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:17:15PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:57:55PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > 
> > > Allow a named software node to be created, which is needed for software
> > > nodes for a fixed-link specification for DSA.
> > 
> > In general I have no objection, but what's worrying me is a possibility to
> > collide in namespace. With the current code the name is generated based on
> > unique IDs, how can we make this one more robust?
> 
> Could you be more clear about the exact concern?

Each software node can be created with a name. The hierarchy should be unique,
means that there can't be two or more nodes with the same path (like on file
system or more specifically here, Device Tree). Allowing to pass names we may
end up with the situation when it will be a path collision. Yet, the static
names are easier to check, because one may run `git grep ...` or coccinelle
script to see what's in the kernel.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:17:15PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:57:55PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > 
> > > Allow a named software node to be created, which is needed for software
> > > nodes for a fixed-link specification for DSA.
> > 
> > In general I have no objection, but what's worrying me is a possibility to
> > collide in namespace. With the current code the name is generated based on
> > unique IDs, how can we make this one more robust?
> 
> Could you be more clear about the exact concern?

Each software node can be created with a name. The hierarchy should be unique,
means that there can't be two or more nodes with the same path (like on file
system or more specifically here, Device Tree). Allowing to pass names we may
end up with the situation when it will be a path collision. Yet, the static
names are easier to check, because one may run `git grep ...` or coccinelle
script to see what's in the kernel.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:33:40PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:17:15PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:57:55PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > > > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Allow a named software node to be created, which is needed for software
> > > > nodes for a fixed-link specification for DSA.
> > > 
> > > In general I have no objection, but what's worrying me is a possibility to
> > > collide in namespace. With the current code the name is generated based on
> > > unique IDs, how can we make this one more robust?
> > 
> > Could you be more clear about the exact concern?
> 
> Each software node can be created with a name. The hierarchy should be unique,
> means that there can't be two or more nodes with the same path (like on file
> system or more specifically here, Device Tree). Allowing to pass names we may
> end up with the situation when it will be a path collision. Yet, the static
> names are easier to check, because one may run `git grep ...` or coccinelle
> script to see what's in the kernel.

So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
determine whether it'll fail?

Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:33:40PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:17:15PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:57:55PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > > > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Allow a named software node to be created, which is needed for software
> > > > nodes for a fixed-link specification for DSA.
> > > 
> > > In general I have no objection, but what's worrying me is a possibility to
> > > collide in namespace. With the current code the name is generated based on
> > > unique IDs, how can we make this one more robust?
> > 
> > Could you be more clear about the exact concern?
> 
> Each software node can be created with a name. The hierarchy should be unique,
> means that there can't be two or more nodes with the same path (like on file
> system or more specifically here, Device Tree). Allowing to pass names we may
> end up with the situation when it will be a path collision. Yet, the static
> names are easier to check, because one may run `git grep ...` or coccinelle
> script to see what's in the kernel.

So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
determine whether it'll fail?

Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 08:17:19PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:00:59PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This is a re-hash of the previous RFC series, this time using the
> > suggestion from Vladimir to create a swnode based fixed-link
> > specifier.
> > 
> > Most of the changes are to DSA and phylink code from the previous
> > series. I've tested on my Clearfog (which has just one Marvell DSA
> > switch) and it works there - also tested without the fixed-link
> > specified in DT.
> 
> I had some comments I wanted to leave on the previous RFC patch set
> (which in turn is essentially identical to this one, hence they still
> apply), but I held off because I thought you were waiting for some
> feedback from Andrew. Has something changed?

I've got fed up of waiting for very little feedback on patches I send.
Jakub was fully prepared to apply my v2 RFC patches after - as he saw
it - everyone that was likely to respond had responded.

The only thing that delayed them was your eventual comments about
re-working how it was being done. Yet again, posting the RFC series
created very little in the way of feedback. I'm getting to the point
of thinking its a waste of time posting RFC patches - it's counter
productive. RFC means "request for comments" but it seems that many
interpret it as "I can ignore it".

So, I'm saying sod it now. I'm posting patches that I create without
RFC tags. That means reviewers need to be on the ball if they want to
comment _before_ they get merged into net-next. Posting RFC is a total
waste of time, IMHO.

You've proven it as well with some of your comments on this series,
which I'll address in a separate reply.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 08:17:19PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:00:59PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This is a re-hash of the previous RFC series, this time using the
> > suggestion from Vladimir to create a swnode based fixed-link
> > specifier.
> > 
> > Most of the changes are to DSA and phylink code from the previous
> > series. I've tested on my Clearfog (which has just one Marvell DSA
> > switch) and it works there - also tested without the fixed-link
> > specified in DT.
> 
> I had some comments I wanted to leave on the previous RFC patch set
> (which in turn is essentially identical to this one, hence they still
> apply), but I held off because I thought you were waiting for some
> feedback from Andrew. Has something changed?

I've got fed up of waiting for very little feedback on patches I send.
Jakub was fully prepared to apply my v2 RFC patches after - as he saw
it - everyone that was likely to respond had responded.

The only thing that delayed them was your eventual comments about
re-working how it was being done. Yet again, posting the RFC series
created very little in the way of feedback. I'm getting to the point
of thinking its a waste of time posting RFC patches - it's counter
productive. RFC means "request for comments" but it seems that many
interpret it as "I can ignore it".

So, I'm saying sod it now. I'm posting patches that I create without
RFC tags. That means reviewers need to be on the ball if they want to
comment _before_ they get merged into net-next. Posting RFC is a total
waste of time, IMHO.

You've proven it as well with some of your comments on this series,
which I'll address in a separate reply.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 08:24:44PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:37PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > DSA port bindings allow for an optional phy interface mode. When an
> > interface mode is not specified, DSA uses the NA interface mode type.
> > 
> > However, phylink needs to know the parameters of the link, and this
> > will become especially important when using phylink for ports that
> > are devoid of all properties except the required "reg" property, so
> > that phylink can select the maximum supported link settings. Without
> > knowing the interface mode, phylink can't truely know the maximum
> > link speed.
> > 
> > Update the prototype for the phylink_get_caps method to allow drivers
> > to report this information back to DSA, and update all DSA
> > implementations function declarations to cater for this change. No
> > code is added to the implementations.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
> > ---
> (...)
> > diff --git a/include/net/dsa.h b/include/net/dsa.h
> > index b902b31bebce..7c6870d2c607 100644
> > --- a/include/net/dsa.h
> > +++ b/include/net/dsa.h
> > @@ -852,7 +852,8 @@ struct dsa_switch_ops {
> >  	 * PHYLINK integration
> >  	 */
> >  	void	(*phylink_get_caps)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > -				    struct phylink_config *config);
> > +				    struct phylink_config *config,
> > +				    phy_interface_t *default_interface);
> 
> I would prefer having a dedicated void (*port_max_speed_interface),
> because the post-phylink DSA drivers (which are not few) will generally
> not need to concern themselves with implementing this, and I don't want
> driver writers to think they need to populate every parameter they see
> in phylink_get_caps. So the new function needs to be documented
> appropriately (specify who needs and who does not need to implement it,
> on which ports it will be called, etc).
> 
> In addition, if we have a dedicated ds->ops->port_max_speed_interface(),
> we can do a better job of avoiding breakage with this patch set, since
> if DSA cannot find a valid phylink fwnode, AND there is no
> port_max_speed_interface() callback for this driver, DSA can still
> preserve the current logic of not putting the port down, and not
> registering it with phylink. That can be accompanied by a dev_warn() to
> state that the CPU/DSA port isn't registered with phylink, please
> implement port_max_speed_interface() to address that.

To continue my previous email...

This is a great illustration why posting RFC series is a waste of time.
This patch was posted as RFC on:

24th June
29th June
5th July
13th July

Only when it's been posted today has there been a concern raised about
the approach. So, what's the use of asking for comments if comments only
come when patches are posted for merging. None what so ever. So, we've
lost the last three weeks because I decided to "be kind" and post RFC.
Total waste of effort.

Now, on your point... the series posted on the 24th June was using
the mv88e6xxx port_max_speed_interface() but discussion off the mailing
list:

20:19 < rmk> kabel: hmm, is mv88e6393x_port_max_speed_mode() correct?
20:20 < rmk> it seems to be suggesting to use PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_10GBASER for
             port 9
09:50 < kabel> rmk: yes, 10gbase-r is correct for 6393x. But we need to add
               exception for 6191x, as is done in chip.c function
               mv88e6393x_phylink_get_caps()
09:51 < kabel> rmk: on 6191x only port 10 supports >1g speeds
11:51 < rmk> kabel: moving it into the get_caps function makes it easier to set
             the default_interfaces for 6193x
14:20 < kabel> rmk: yes, get_caps doing it would be better

The problem is this - we call get_caps(), and we have to read registers
to work out what the port supports. If we have a separate callback, then
we need to re-read those registers to get the same information to report
what the default interface should be.

Since almost all of the Marvell implementations the values for both the
list of supported interfaces and the default interface both require
reading a register and translating it to a phy_interface_t, and then
setting the support mask, it seems logical to combine these two
functioalities into one function.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 08:24:44PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:37PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > DSA port bindings allow for an optional phy interface mode. When an
> > interface mode is not specified, DSA uses the NA interface mode type.
> > 
> > However, phylink needs to know the parameters of the link, and this
> > will become especially important when using phylink for ports that
> > are devoid of all properties except the required "reg" property, so
> > that phylink can select the maximum supported link settings. Without
> > knowing the interface mode, phylink can't truely know the maximum
> > link speed.
> > 
> > Update the prototype for the phylink_get_caps method to allow drivers
> > to report this information back to DSA, and update all DSA
> > implementations function declarations to cater for this change. No
> > code is added to the implementations.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
> > ---
> (...)
> > diff --git a/include/net/dsa.h b/include/net/dsa.h
> > index b902b31bebce..7c6870d2c607 100644
> > --- a/include/net/dsa.h
> > +++ b/include/net/dsa.h
> > @@ -852,7 +852,8 @@ struct dsa_switch_ops {
> >  	 * PHYLINK integration
> >  	 */
> >  	void	(*phylink_get_caps)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > -				    struct phylink_config *config);
> > +				    struct phylink_config *config,
> > +				    phy_interface_t *default_interface);
> 
> I would prefer having a dedicated void (*port_max_speed_interface),
> because the post-phylink DSA drivers (which are not few) will generally
> not need to concern themselves with implementing this, and I don't want
> driver writers to think they need to populate every parameter they see
> in phylink_get_caps. So the new function needs to be documented
> appropriately (specify who needs and who does not need to implement it,
> on which ports it will be called, etc).
> 
> In addition, if we have a dedicated ds->ops->port_max_speed_interface(),
> we can do a better job of avoiding breakage with this patch set, since
> if DSA cannot find a valid phylink fwnode, AND there is no
> port_max_speed_interface() callback for this driver, DSA can still
> preserve the current logic of not putting the port down, and not
> registering it with phylink. That can be accompanied by a dev_warn() to
> state that the CPU/DSA port isn't registered with phylink, please
> implement port_max_speed_interface() to address that.

To continue my previous email...

This is a great illustration why posting RFC series is a waste of time.
This patch was posted as RFC on:

24th June
29th June
5th July
13th July

Only when it's been posted today has there been a concern raised about
the approach. So, what's the use of asking for comments if comments only
come when patches are posted for merging. None what so ever. So, we've
lost the last three weeks because I decided to "be kind" and post RFC.
Total waste of effort.

Now, on your point... the series posted on the 24th June was using
the mv88e6xxx port_max_speed_interface() but discussion off the mailing
list:

20:19 < rmk> kabel: hmm, is mv88e6393x_port_max_speed_mode() correct?
20:20 < rmk> it seems to be suggesting to use PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_10GBASER for
             port 9
09:50 < kabel> rmk: yes, 10gbase-r is correct for 6393x. But we need to add
               exception for 6191x, as is done in chip.c function
               mv88e6393x_phylink_get_caps()
09:51 < kabel> rmk: on 6191x only port 10 supports >1g speeds
11:51 < rmk> kabel: moving it into the get_caps function makes it easier to set
             the default_interfaces for 6193x
14:20 < kabel> rmk: yes, get_caps doing it would be better

The problem is this - we call get_caps(), and we have to read registers
to work out what the port supports. If we have a separate callback, then
we need to re-read those registers to get the same information to report
what the default interface should be.

Since almost all of the Marvell implementations the values for both the
list of supported interfaces and the default interface both require
reading a register and translating it to a phy_interface_t, and then
setting the support mask, it seems logical to combine these two
functioalities into one function.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] net: dsa: use swnode fixed-link if using default params

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:11:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:48PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > Create and use a swnode fixed-link specification for phylink if no
> > parameters are given in DT for a fixed-link. This allows phylink to
> > be used for "default" cases for DSA and CPU ports. Enable the use
> > of phylink in all cases for DSA and CPU ports.
> 
> > Co-developed by Vladimir Oltean and myself.
> 
> Why not to use
> 
>   Co-developed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>

Ah, that's an official thing. Thanks.

> > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
> 
> ...
> 
> > +static struct {
> > +	unsigned long mask;
> > +	int speed;
> > +	int duplex;
> > +} phylink_caps_params[] = {
> > +	{ MAC_400000FD, SPEED_400000, DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_200000FD, SPEED_200000, DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_100000FD, SPEED_100000, DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_56000FD,  SPEED_56000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_50000FD,  SPEED_50000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_40000FD,  SPEED_40000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_25000FD,  SPEED_25000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_20000FD,  SPEED_20000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_10000FD,  SPEED_10000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_5000FD,   SPEED_5000,   DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_2500FD,   SPEED_2500,   DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_1000FD,   SPEED_1000,   DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_100FD,    SPEED_100,    DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_10FD,     SPEED_10,     DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_1000HD,   SPEED_1000,   DUPLEX_HALF },
> > +	{ MAC_100HD,    SPEED_100,    DUPLEX_HALF },
> > +	{ MAC_10HD,     SPEED_10,     DUPLEX_HALF },
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int dsa_port_find_max_speed(unsigned long caps, int *speed, int *duplex)
> > +{
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	*speed = SPEED_UNKNOWN;
> > +	*duplex = DUPLEX_UNKNOWN;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(phylink_caps_params); i++) {
> > +		if (caps & phylink_caps_params[i].mask) {
> > +			*speed = phylink_caps_params[i].speed;
> > +			*duplex = phylink_caps_params[i].duplex;
> 
> > +			break;
> 
> With the below check it's way too protective programming.
> 
> 			return 0;
> 
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return *speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN ? -EINVAL : 0;
> 
> 	return -EINVAL;

Ok.

> > +static struct fwnode_handle *dsa_port_get_fwnode(struct dsa_port *dp,
> > +						 phy_interface_t mode)
> > +{
> 
> > +	struct property_entry fixed_link_props[3] = { };
> > +	struct property_entry port_props[3] = {};
> 
> A bit of consistency in the assignments?
> 
> Also it seems you are using up to 2 for the first one and only 1 in the second
> one. IIUC it requires a terminator entry, so it means 3 and 2. Do we really
> need 3 in the second case?

Probably not - that came from Vladimir's patch, and I removed the "reg"
property without fixing this up. Thanks for spotting.

> > +	struct fwnode_handle *fixed_link_fwnode;
> > +	struct fwnode_handle *new_port_fwnode;
> > +	struct device_node *dn = dp->dn;
> > +	struct device_node *phy_node;
> > +	int err, speed, duplex;
> > +	unsigned long caps;
> > +
> > +	phy_node = of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy-handle", 0);
> 
> fwnode in the name, why not to use fwnode APIs?
> 
> 	fwnode_find_reference();

Marcin has a series converting DSA to use fwnode things - currently DSA
does not support ACPI, so converting it to fwnode doesn't make that much
sese until the proper ACPI patches get merged, which have now been
rebased on this series by Marcin in the expectation that these patches
would be merged... so I don't want to tred on Marcin's feet on that.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] net: dsa: use swnode fixed-link if using default params

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:11:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:48PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > Create and use a swnode fixed-link specification for phylink if no
> > parameters are given in DT for a fixed-link. This allows phylink to
> > be used for "default" cases for DSA and CPU ports. Enable the use
> > of phylink in all cases for DSA and CPU ports.
> 
> > Co-developed by Vladimir Oltean and myself.
> 
> Why not to use
> 
>   Co-developed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>

Ah, that's an official thing. Thanks.

> > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
> 
> ...
> 
> > +static struct {
> > +	unsigned long mask;
> > +	int speed;
> > +	int duplex;
> > +} phylink_caps_params[] = {
> > +	{ MAC_400000FD, SPEED_400000, DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_200000FD, SPEED_200000, DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_100000FD, SPEED_100000, DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_56000FD,  SPEED_56000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_50000FD,  SPEED_50000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_40000FD,  SPEED_40000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_25000FD,  SPEED_25000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_20000FD,  SPEED_20000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_10000FD,  SPEED_10000,  DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_5000FD,   SPEED_5000,   DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_2500FD,   SPEED_2500,   DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_1000FD,   SPEED_1000,   DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_100FD,    SPEED_100,    DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_10FD,     SPEED_10,     DUPLEX_FULL },
> > +	{ MAC_1000HD,   SPEED_1000,   DUPLEX_HALF },
> > +	{ MAC_100HD,    SPEED_100,    DUPLEX_HALF },
> > +	{ MAC_10HD,     SPEED_10,     DUPLEX_HALF },
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int dsa_port_find_max_speed(unsigned long caps, int *speed, int *duplex)
> > +{
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	*speed = SPEED_UNKNOWN;
> > +	*duplex = DUPLEX_UNKNOWN;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(phylink_caps_params); i++) {
> > +		if (caps & phylink_caps_params[i].mask) {
> > +			*speed = phylink_caps_params[i].speed;
> > +			*duplex = phylink_caps_params[i].duplex;
> 
> > +			break;
> 
> With the below check it's way too protective programming.
> 
> 			return 0;
> 
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return *speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN ? -EINVAL : 0;
> 
> 	return -EINVAL;

Ok.

> > +static struct fwnode_handle *dsa_port_get_fwnode(struct dsa_port *dp,
> > +						 phy_interface_t mode)
> > +{
> 
> > +	struct property_entry fixed_link_props[3] = { };
> > +	struct property_entry port_props[3] = {};
> 
> A bit of consistency in the assignments?
> 
> Also it seems you are using up to 2 for the first one and only 1 in the second
> one. IIUC it requires a terminator entry, so it means 3 and 2. Do we really
> need 3 in the second case?

Probably not - that came from Vladimir's patch, and I removed the "reg"
property without fixing this up. Thanks for spotting.

> > +	struct fwnode_handle *fixed_link_fwnode;
> > +	struct fwnode_handle *new_port_fwnode;
> > +	struct device_node *dn = dp->dn;
> > +	struct device_node *phy_node;
> > +	int err, speed, duplex;
> > +	unsigned long caps;
> > +
> > +	phy_node = of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy-handle", 0);
> 
> fwnode in the name, why not to use fwnode APIs?
> 
> 	fwnode_find_reference();

Marcin has a series converting DSA to use fwnode things - currently DSA
does not support ACPI, so converting it to fwnode doesn't make that much
sese until the proper ACPI patches get merged, which have now been
rebased on this series by Marcin in the expectation that these patches
would be merged... so I don't want to tred on Marcin's feet on that.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:31:17PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 08:24:44PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:37PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > DSA port bindings allow for an optional phy interface mode. When an
> > > interface mode is not specified, DSA uses the NA interface mode type.
> > > 
> > > However, phylink needs to know the parameters of the link, and this
> > > will become especially important when using phylink for ports that
> > > are devoid of all properties except the required "reg" property, so
> > > that phylink can select the maximum supported link settings. Without
> > > knowing the interface mode, phylink can't truely know the maximum
> > > link speed.
> > > 
> > > Update the prototype for the phylink_get_caps method to allow drivers
> > > to report this information back to DSA, and update all DSA
> > > implementations function declarations to cater for this change. No
> > > code is added to the implementations.
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
> > > ---
> > (...)
> > > diff --git a/include/net/dsa.h b/include/net/dsa.h
> > > index b902b31bebce..7c6870d2c607 100644
> > > --- a/include/net/dsa.h
> > > +++ b/include/net/dsa.h
> > > @@ -852,7 +852,8 @@ struct dsa_switch_ops {
> > >  	 * PHYLINK integration
> > >  	 */
> > >  	void	(*phylink_get_caps)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > > -				    struct phylink_config *config);
> > > +				    struct phylink_config *config,
> > > +				    phy_interface_t *default_interface);
> > 
> > I would prefer having a dedicated void (*port_max_speed_interface),
> > because the post-phylink DSA drivers (which are not few) will generally
> > not need to concern themselves with implementing this, and I don't want
> > driver writers to think they need to populate every parameter they see
> > in phylink_get_caps. So the new function needs to be documented
> > appropriately (specify who needs and who does not need to implement it,
> > on which ports it will be called, etc).
> > 
> > In addition, if we have a dedicated ds->ops->port_max_speed_interface(),
> > we can do a better job of avoiding breakage with this patch set, since
> > if DSA cannot find a valid phylink fwnode, AND there is no
> > port_max_speed_interface() callback for this driver, DSA can still
> > preserve the current logic of not putting the port down, and not
> > registering it with phylink. That can be accompanied by a dev_warn() to
> > state that the CPU/DSA port isn't registered with phylink, please
> > implement port_max_speed_interface() to address that.
> 
> To continue my previous email...
> 
> This is a great illustration why posting RFC series is a waste of time.
> This patch was posted as RFC on:
> 
> 24th June
> 29th June
> 5th July
> 13th July
> 
> Only when it's been posted today has there been a concern raised about
> the approach. So, what's the use of asking for comments if comments only
> come when patches are posted for merging. None what so ever. So, we've
> lost the last three weeks because I decided to "be kind" and post RFC.
> Total waste of effort.

Sorry, but I don't exactly have a reason to respond to this series earlier
than others more directly affected, even less so when it's an RFC.
My feedback is strictly from the point of view of the "other" drivers
who don't care about context-specific interpretations of the CPU port
OF node. For them it doesn't make sense to have "default_interface" an
argument of phylink_get_caps.

Also about the total waste of effort (or at least time), it's not at all
obvious to me that if I had provided more feedback earlier, this series
would have been done with even one day earlier, considering you've stated
at least twice that you're waiting for a reply from Andrew, which didn't come.

> 
> Now, on your point... the series posted on the 24th June was using
> the mv88e6xxx port_max_speed_interface() but discussion off the mailing
> list:
> 
> 20:19 < rmk> kabel: hmm, is mv88e6393x_port_max_speed_mode() correct?
> 20:20 < rmk> it seems to be suggesting to use PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_10GBASER for
>              port 9
> 09:50 < kabel> rmk: yes, 10gbase-r is correct for 6393x. But we need to add
>                exception for 6191x, as is done in chip.c function
>                mv88e6393x_phylink_get_caps()
> 09:51 < kabel> rmk: on 6191x only port 10 supports >1g speeds
> 11:51 < rmk> kabel: moving it into the get_caps function makes it easier to set
>              the default_interfaces for 6193x
> 14:20 < kabel> rmk: yes, get_caps doing it would be better
> 
> The problem is this - we call get_caps(), and we have to read registers
> to work out what the port supports. If we have a separate callback, then
> we need to re-read those registers to get the same information to report
> what the default interface should be.
> 
> Since almost all of the Marvell implementations the values for both the
> list of supported interfaces and the default interface both require
> reading a register and translating it to a phy_interface_t, and then
> setting the support mask, it seems logical to combine these two
> functioalities into one function.

In essence that doesn't mean much; DSA isn't Marvell only, but I'll give
it to you: if only the Marvell driver (and Broadcom later, I expect) is
going to add support for the context-specific interpretation of CPU port
OF nodes, then we may consider tailoring the implementation to their
hardware register layout details. In any case, my concern can be
addressed even if you insist on keeping the default interface as an
argument of phylink_get_caps. There just needs to be a lot more
documentation explaining who needs to populate that argument and why.

Also, perhaps more importantly, a real effort needs to be put to prevent
breakage for drivers that work without a phylink instance registered for
the CPU port, and also don't report the default interface. Practically
that just means not deleting the current logic, but making it one of 3
options.

fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
       /                             \
 yes  /                               \ no
     /                                 \
register with phylink         can we determine the link parameters to create
                                  a fixed-link software node?
                                       /                \                     \
                                 yes  /                  \  no                |
                                     /                    \                   | this is missing
                                    /                      \                  |
             create the software node and       don't put the port down,      |
             register with phylink              don't register with phylink   /

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:31:17PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 08:24:44PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:37PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > DSA port bindings allow for an optional phy interface mode. When an
> > > interface mode is not specified, DSA uses the NA interface mode type.
> > > 
> > > However, phylink needs to know the parameters of the link, and this
> > > will become especially important when using phylink for ports that
> > > are devoid of all properties except the required "reg" property, so
> > > that phylink can select the maximum supported link settings. Without
> > > knowing the interface mode, phylink can't truely know the maximum
> > > link speed.
> > > 
> > > Update the prototype for the phylink_get_caps method to allow drivers
> > > to report this information back to DSA, and update all DSA
> > > implementations function declarations to cater for this change. No
> > > code is added to the implementations.
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
> > > ---
> > (...)
> > > diff --git a/include/net/dsa.h b/include/net/dsa.h
> > > index b902b31bebce..7c6870d2c607 100644
> > > --- a/include/net/dsa.h
> > > +++ b/include/net/dsa.h
> > > @@ -852,7 +852,8 @@ struct dsa_switch_ops {
> > >  	 * PHYLINK integration
> > >  	 */
> > >  	void	(*phylink_get_caps)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > > -				    struct phylink_config *config);
> > > +				    struct phylink_config *config,
> > > +				    phy_interface_t *default_interface);
> > 
> > I would prefer having a dedicated void (*port_max_speed_interface),
> > because the post-phylink DSA drivers (which are not few) will generally
> > not need to concern themselves with implementing this, and I don't want
> > driver writers to think they need to populate every parameter they see
> > in phylink_get_caps. So the new function needs to be documented
> > appropriately (specify who needs and who does not need to implement it,
> > on which ports it will be called, etc).
> > 
> > In addition, if we have a dedicated ds->ops->port_max_speed_interface(),
> > we can do a better job of avoiding breakage with this patch set, since
> > if DSA cannot find a valid phylink fwnode, AND there is no
> > port_max_speed_interface() callback for this driver, DSA can still
> > preserve the current logic of not putting the port down, and not
> > registering it with phylink. That can be accompanied by a dev_warn() to
> > state that the CPU/DSA port isn't registered with phylink, please
> > implement port_max_speed_interface() to address that.
> 
> To continue my previous email...
> 
> This is a great illustration why posting RFC series is a waste of time.
> This patch was posted as RFC on:
> 
> 24th June
> 29th June
> 5th July
> 13th July
> 
> Only when it's been posted today has there been a concern raised about
> the approach. So, what's the use of asking for comments if comments only
> come when patches are posted for merging. None what so ever. So, we've
> lost the last three weeks because I decided to "be kind" and post RFC.
> Total waste of effort.

Sorry, but I don't exactly have a reason to respond to this series earlier
than others more directly affected, even less so when it's an RFC.
My feedback is strictly from the point of view of the "other" drivers
who don't care about context-specific interpretations of the CPU port
OF node. For them it doesn't make sense to have "default_interface" an
argument of phylink_get_caps.

Also about the total waste of effort (or at least time), it's not at all
obvious to me that if I had provided more feedback earlier, this series
would have been done with even one day earlier, considering you've stated
at least twice that you're waiting for a reply from Andrew, which didn't come.

> 
> Now, on your point... the series posted on the 24th June was using
> the mv88e6xxx port_max_speed_interface() but discussion off the mailing
> list:
> 
> 20:19 < rmk> kabel: hmm, is mv88e6393x_port_max_speed_mode() correct?
> 20:20 < rmk> it seems to be suggesting to use PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_10GBASER for
>              port 9
> 09:50 < kabel> rmk: yes, 10gbase-r is correct for 6393x. But we need to add
>                exception for 6191x, as is done in chip.c function
>                mv88e6393x_phylink_get_caps()
> 09:51 < kabel> rmk: on 6191x only port 10 supports >1g speeds
> 11:51 < rmk> kabel: moving it into the get_caps function makes it easier to set
>              the default_interfaces for 6193x
> 14:20 < kabel> rmk: yes, get_caps doing it would be better
> 
> The problem is this - we call get_caps(), and we have to read registers
> to work out what the port supports. If we have a separate callback, then
> we need to re-read those registers to get the same information to report
> what the default interface should be.
> 
> Since almost all of the Marvell implementations the values for both the
> list of supported interfaces and the default interface both require
> reading a register and translating it to a phy_interface_t, and then
> setting the support mask, it seems logical to combine these two
> functioalities into one function.

In essence that doesn't mean much; DSA isn't Marvell only, but I'll give
it to you: if only the Marvell driver (and Broadcom later, I expect) is
going to add support for the context-specific interpretation of CPU port
OF nodes, then we may consider tailoring the implementation to their
hardware register layout details. In any case, my concern can be
addressed even if you insist on keeping the default interface as an
argument of phylink_get_caps. There just needs to be a lot more
documentation explaining who needs to populate that argument and why.

Also, perhaps more importantly, a real effort needs to be put to prevent
breakage for drivers that work without a phylink instance registered for
the CPU port, and also don't report the default interface. Practically
that just means not deleting the current logic, but making it one of 3
options.

fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
       /                             \
 yes  /                               \ no
     /                                 \
register with phylink         can we determine the link parameters to create
                                  a fixed-link software node?
                                       /                \                     \
                                 yes  /                  \  no                |
                                     /                    \                   | this is missing
                                    /                      \                  |
             create the software node and       don't put the port down,      |
             register with phylink              don't register with phylink   /


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 01:23:48AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:31:17PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 08:24:44PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:37PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > DSA port bindings allow for an optional phy interface mode. When an
> > > > interface mode is not specified, DSA uses the NA interface mode type.
> > > > 
> > > > However, phylink needs to know the parameters of the link, and this
> > > > will become especially important when using phylink for ports that
> > > > are devoid of all properties except the required "reg" property, so
> > > > that phylink can select the maximum supported link settings. Without
> > > > knowing the interface mode, phylink can't truely know the maximum
> > > > link speed.
> > > > 
> > > > Update the prototype for the phylink_get_caps method to allow drivers
> > > > to report this information back to DSA, and update all DSA
> > > > implementations function declarations to cater for this change. No
> > > > code is added to the implementations.
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
> > > > ---
> > > (...)
> > > > diff --git a/include/net/dsa.h b/include/net/dsa.h
> > > > index b902b31bebce..7c6870d2c607 100644
> > > > --- a/include/net/dsa.h
> > > > +++ b/include/net/dsa.h
> > > > @@ -852,7 +852,8 @@ struct dsa_switch_ops {
> > > >  	 * PHYLINK integration
> > > >  	 */
> > > >  	void	(*phylink_get_caps)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > > > -				    struct phylink_config *config);
> > > > +				    struct phylink_config *config,
> > > > +				    phy_interface_t *default_interface);
> > > 
> > > I would prefer having a dedicated void (*port_max_speed_interface),
> > > because the post-phylink DSA drivers (which are not few) will generally
> > > not need to concern themselves with implementing this, and I don't want
> > > driver writers to think they need to populate every parameter they see
> > > in phylink_get_caps. So the new function needs to be documented
> > > appropriately (specify who needs and who does not need to implement it,
> > > on which ports it will be called, etc).
> > > 
> > > In addition, if we have a dedicated ds->ops->port_max_speed_interface(),
> > > we can do a better job of avoiding breakage with this patch set, since
> > > if DSA cannot find a valid phylink fwnode, AND there is no
> > > port_max_speed_interface() callback for this driver, DSA can still
> > > preserve the current logic of not putting the port down, and not
> > > registering it with phylink. That can be accompanied by a dev_warn() to
> > > state that the CPU/DSA port isn't registered with phylink, please
> > > implement port_max_speed_interface() to address that.
> > 
> > To continue my previous email...
> > 
> > This is a great illustration why posting RFC series is a waste of time.
> > This patch was posted as RFC on:
> > 
> > 24th June
> > 29th June
> > 5th July
> > 13th July
> > 
> > Only when it's been posted today has there been a concern raised about
> > the approach. So, what's the use of asking for comments if comments only
> > come when patches are posted for merging. None what so ever. So, we've
> > lost the last three weeks because I decided to "be kind" and post RFC.
> > Total waste of effort.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't exactly have a reason to respond to this series earlier
> than others more directly affected, even less so when it's an RFC.
> My feedback is strictly from the point of view of the "other" drivers
> who don't care about context-specific interpretations of the CPU port
> OF node. For them it doesn't make sense to have "default_interface" an
> argument of phylink_get_caps.
> 
> Also about the total waste of effort (or at least time), it's not at all
> obvious to me that if I had provided more feedback earlier, this series
> would have been done with even one day earlier, considering you've stated
> at least twice that you're waiting for a reply from Andrew, which didn't come.

I've given up waiting, basically. I think anyone reasonable will also
have decided the same thing. As I've said, Jakub seems to have given up
waiting for people to review my RFC patches to - this is what Jakub
said to me last week on my RFC series:

| IIUC the folks we expect to pay attention/test have already done so,
| all we can do now is apply and deal with the reports. 5.21 is more
| likely to be LTS than 5.20, right? So no point delaying.

And I really am at the point of agreeing with this - people have had
more than sufficient time to comment, and if they haven't by now, either
they don't care or they're just being difficult and intentionally trying
to stall development effort.

> > Now, on your point... the series posted on the 24th June was using
> > the mv88e6xxx port_max_speed_interface() but discussion off the mailing
> > list:
> > 
> > 20:19 < rmk> kabel: hmm, is mv88e6393x_port_max_speed_mode() correct?
> > 20:20 < rmk> it seems to be suggesting to use PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_10GBASER for
> >              port 9
> > 09:50 < kabel> rmk: yes, 10gbase-r is correct for 6393x. But we need to add
> >                exception for 6191x, as is done in chip.c function
> >                mv88e6393x_phylink_get_caps()
> > 09:51 < kabel> rmk: on 6191x only port 10 supports >1g speeds
> > 11:51 < rmk> kabel: moving it into the get_caps function makes it easier to set
> >              the default_interfaces for 6193x
> > 14:20 < kabel> rmk: yes, get_caps doing it would be better
> > 
> > The problem is this - we call get_caps(), and we have to read registers
> > to work out what the port supports. If we have a separate callback, then
> > we need to re-read those registers to get the same information to report
> > what the default interface should be.
> > 
> > Since almost all of the Marvell implementations the values for both the
> > list of supported interfaces and the default interface both require
> > reading a register and translating it to a phy_interface_t, and then
> > setting the support mask, it seems logical to combine these two
> > functioalities into one function.
> 
> In essence that doesn't mean much; DSA isn't Marvell only, but I'll give
> it to you: if only the Marvell driver (and Broadcom later, I expect) is
> going to add support for the context-specific interpretation of CPU port
> OF nodes, then we may consider tailoring the implementation to their
> hardware register layout details. In any case, my concern can be
> addressed even if you insist on keeping the default interface as an
> argument of phylink_get_caps. There just needs to be a lot more
> documentation explaining who needs to populate that argument and why.

I don't get the point you're making here.

> Also, perhaps more importantly, a real effort needs to be put to prevent
> breakage for drivers that work without a phylink instance registered for
> the CPU port, and also don't report the default interface. Practically
> that just means not deleting the current logic, but making it one of 3
> options.
> 
> fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
>        /                             \
>  yes  /                               \ no
>      /                                 \
> register with phylink         can we determine the link parameters to create
>                                   a fixed-link software node?
>                                        /                \                     \
>                                  yes  /                  \  no                |
>                                      /                    \                   | this is missing
>                                     /                      \                  |
>              create the software node and       don't put the port down,      |
>              register with phylink              don't register with phylink   /

This is exactly what we have today, and is exactly what I'm trying to
get rid of, so we have _consistency_ in the implementation, to prevent
fuckups like I've created by converting many DSA drivers to use
phylink_pcs. Any DSA driver that used a PCS for the DSA or CPu port and
has been converted to phylink_pcs support has been broken in the last
few kernel cycles. I'm trying to address that breakage before
converting the Marvell DSA driver - which is the driver that highlighted
the problem.

We need to move away from the current model in DSA where we only use
stuff in random situations.

Well, at this point, I'm just going to give up with this kernel cycle.
It seems impossible to get this sorted. It seems impossible to move
forward with the conversion of Marvell DSA to phylink_pcs. In fact,
I might just give up with the idea of further phylink development
because it's just too fucking difficult, and getting feedback is just
impossible.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 01:23:48AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:31:17PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 08:24:44PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:37PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > DSA port bindings allow for an optional phy interface mode. When an
> > > > interface mode is not specified, DSA uses the NA interface mode type.
> > > > 
> > > > However, phylink needs to know the parameters of the link, and this
> > > > will become especially important when using phylink for ports that
> > > > are devoid of all properties except the required "reg" property, so
> > > > that phylink can select the maximum supported link settings. Without
> > > > knowing the interface mode, phylink can't truely know the maximum
> > > > link speed.
> > > > 
> > > > Update the prototype for the phylink_get_caps method to allow drivers
> > > > to report this information back to DSA, and update all DSA
> > > > implementations function declarations to cater for this change. No
> > > > code is added to the implementations.
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
> > > > ---
> > > (...)
> > > > diff --git a/include/net/dsa.h b/include/net/dsa.h
> > > > index b902b31bebce..7c6870d2c607 100644
> > > > --- a/include/net/dsa.h
> > > > +++ b/include/net/dsa.h
> > > > @@ -852,7 +852,8 @@ struct dsa_switch_ops {
> > > >  	 * PHYLINK integration
> > > >  	 */
> > > >  	void	(*phylink_get_caps)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > > > -				    struct phylink_config *config);
> > > > +				    struct phylink_config *config,
> > > > +				    phy_interface_t *default_interface);
> > > 
> > > I would prefer having a dedicated void (*port_max_speed_interface),
> > > because the post-phylink DSA drivers (which are not few) will generally
> > > not need to concern themselves with implementing this, and I don't want
> > > driver writers to think they need to populate every parameter they see
> > > in phylink_get_caps. So the new function needs to be documented
> > > appropriately (specify who needs and who does not need to implement it,
> > > on which ports it will be called, etc).
> > > 
> > > In addition, if we have a dedicated ds->ops->port_max_speed_interface(),
> > > we can do a better job of avoiding breakage with this patch set, since
> > > if DSA cannot find a valid phylink fwnode, AND there is no
> > > port_max_speed_interface() callback for this driver, DSA can still
> > > preserve the current logic of not putting the port down, and not
> > > registering it with phylink. That can be accompanied by a dev_warn() to
> > > state that the CPU/DSA port isn't registered with phylink, please
> > > implement port_max_speed_interface() to address that.
> > 
> > To continue my previous email...
> > 
> > This is a great illustration why posting RFC series is a waste of time.
> > This patch was posted as RFC on:
> > 
> > 24th June
> > 29th June
> > 5th July
> > 13th July
> > 
> > Only when it's been posted today has there been a concern raised about
> > the approach. So, what's the use of asking for comments if comments only
> > come when patches are posted for merging. None what so ever. So, we've
> > lost the last three weeks because I decided to "be kind" and post RFC.
> > Total waste of effort.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't exactly have a reason to respond to this series earlier
> than others more directly affected, even less so when it's an RFC.
> My feedback is strictly from the point of view of the "other" drivers
> who don't care about context-specific interpretations of the CPU port
> OF node. For them it doesn't make sense to have "default_interface" an
> argument of phylink_get_caps.
> 
> Also about the total waste of effort (or at least time), it's not at all
> obvious to me that if I had provided more feedback earlier, this series
> would have been done with even one day earlier, considering you've stated
> at least twice that you're waiting for a reply from Andrew, which didn't come.

I've given up waiting, basically. I think anyone reasonable will also
have decided the same thing. As I've said, Jakub seems to have given up
waiting for people to review my RFC patches to - this is what Jakub
said to me last week on my RFC series:

| IIUC the folks we expect to pay attention/test have already done so,
| all we can do now is apply and deal with the reports. 5.21 is more
| likely to be LTS than 5.20, right? So no point delaying.

And I really am at the point of agreeing with this - people have had
more than sufficient time to comment, and if they haven't by now, either
they don't care or they're just being difficult and intentionally trying
to stall development effort.

> > Now, on your point... the series posted on the 24th June was using
> > the mv88e6xxx port_max_speed_interface() but discussion off the mailing
> > list:
> > 
> > 20:19 < rmk> kabel: hmm, is mv88e6393x_port_max_speed_mode() correct?
> > 20:20 < rmk> it seems to be suggesting to use PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_10GBASER for
> >              port 9
> > 09:50 < kabel> rmk: yes, 10gbase-r is correct for 6393x. But we need to add
> >                exception for 6191x, as is done in chip.c function
> >                mv88e6393x_phylink_get_caps()
> > 09:51 < kabel> rmk: on 6191x only port 10 supports >1g speeds
> > 11:51 < rmk> kabel: moving it into the get_caps function makes it easier to set
> >              the default_interfaces for 6193x
> > 14:20 < kabel> rmk: yes, get_caps doing it would be better
> > 
> > The problem is this - we call get_caps(), and we have to read registers
> > to work out what the port supports. If we have a separate callback, then
> > we need to re-read those registers to get the same information to report
> > what the default interface should be.
> > 
> > Since almost all of the Marvell implementations the values for both the
> > list of supported interfaces and the default interface both require
> > reading a register and translating it to a phy_interface_t, and then
> > setting the support mask, it seems logical to combine these two
> > functioalities into one function.
> 
> In essence that doesn't mean much; DSA isn't Marvell only, but I'll give
> it to you: if only the Marvell driver (and Broadcom later, I expect) is
> going to add support for the context-specific interpretation of CPU port
> OF nodes, then we may consider tailoring the implementation to their
> hardware register layout details. In any case, my concern can be
> addressed even if you insist on keeping the default interface as an
> argument of phylink_get_caps. There just needs to be a lot more
> documentation explaining who needs to populate that argument and why.

I don't get the point you're making here.

> Also, perhaps more importantly, a real effort needs to be put to prevent
> breakage for drivers that work without a phylink instance registered for
> the CPU port, and also don't report the default interface. Practically
> that just means not deleting the current logic, but making it one of 3
> options.
> 
> fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
>        /                             \
>  yes  /                               \ no
>      /                                 \
> register with phylink         can we determine the link parameters to create
>                                   a fixed-link software node?
>                                        /                \                     \
>                                  yes  /                  \  no                |
>                                      /                    \                   | this is missing
>                                     /                      \                  |
>              create the software node and       don't put the port down,      |
>              register with phylink              don't register with phylink   /

This is exactly what we have today, and is exactly what I'm trying to
get rid of, so we have _consistency_ in the implementation, to prevent
fuckups like I've created by converting many DSA drivers to use
phylink_pcs. Any DSA driver that used a PCS for the DSA or CPu port and
has been converted to phylink_pcs support has been broken in the last
few kernel cycles. I'm trying to address that breakage before
converting the Marvell DSA driver - which is the driver that highlighted
the problem.

We need to move away from the current model in DSA where we only use
stuff in random situations.

Well, at this point, I'm just going to give up with this kernel cycle.
It seems impossible to get this sorted. It seems impossible to move
forward with the conversion of Marvell DSA to phylink_pcs. In fact,
I might just give up with the idea of further phylink development
because it's just too fucking difficult, and getting feedback is just
impossible.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 21:59:24 +0100 Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> The only thing that delayed them was your eventual comments about
> re-working how it was being done. Yet again, posting the RFC series
> created very little in the way of feedback. I'm getting to the point
> of thinking its a waste of time posting RFC patches - it's counter
> productive. RFC means "request for comments" but it seems that many
> interpret it as "I can ignore it".

I'm afraid you are correct. Dave used to occasionally apply RFC patches
which kept reviewers on their toes a little bit (it kept me for sure).
These days patchwork automatically marks patches as RFC based on
the subject, tossing them out of "Action required" queue. So they are
extremely easy to ignore.

Perhaps an alternative way of posting would be to write "RFC only,
please don't apply" at the end of the cover letter. Maybe folks will 
at least get thru reading the cover letter then :S

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 21:59:24 +0100 Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> The only thing that delayed them was your eventual comments about
> re-working how it was being done. Yet again, posting the RFC series
> created very little in the way of feedback. I'm getting to the point
> of thinking its a waste of time posting RFC patches - it's counter
> productive. RFC means "request for comments" but it seems that many
> interpret it as "I can ignore it".

I'm afraid you are correct. Dave used to occasionally apply RFC patches
which kept reviewers on their toes a little bit (it kept me for sure).
These days patchwork automatically marks patches as RFC based on
the subject, tossing them out of "Action required" queue. So they are
extremely easy to ignore.

Perhaps an alternative way of posting would be to write "RFC only,
please don't apply" at the end of the cover letter. Maybe folks will 
at least get thru reading the cover letter then :S

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:57:20PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > The problem is this - we call get_caps(), and we have to read registers
> > > to work out what the port supports. If we have a separate callback, then
> > > we need to re-read those registers to get the same information to report
> > > what the default interface should be.
> > > 
> > > Since almost all of the Marvell implementations the values for both the
> > > list of supported interfaces and the default interface both require
> > > reading a register and translating it to a phy_interface_t, and then
> > > setting the support mask, it seems logical to combine these two
> > > functioalities into one function.
> > 
> > In essence that doesn't mean much; DSA isn't Marvell only, but I'll give
> > it to you: if only the Marvell driver (and Broadcom later, I expect) is
> > going to add support for the context-specific interpretation of CPU port
> > OF nodes, then we may consider tailoring the implementation to their
> > hardware register layout details. In any case, my concern can be
> > addressed even if you insist on keeping the default interface as an
> > argument of phylink_get_caps. There just needs to be a lot more
> > documentation explaining who needs to populate that argument and why.
> 
> I don't get the point you're making here.

The point I'm making is that I dislike where this is going. The addition
of "default_interface" to phylink_get_caps is confusing because it lacks
proper qualifiers.

The concrete reasons why it's confusing are:

(a) there is no comment which specifies on which kinds of ports (DSA and CPU)
    the default_interface will be used. This might result in useless effort
    from driver authors to report a default_interface for a port where it
    will never be asked for.

(b) there is no comment which specifies that only the drivers which have
    DT blobs with missing phylink bindings on CPU and DSA ports should
    fill this out. I wouldn't want to see a new driver use this facility,
    I just don't see a reason for it. I'd rather see a comment that the
    recommendation for new drivers is to validate their bindings and not
    rely on context-specific interpretations of empty DT nodes.

(c) especially with the dsa_port_find_max_caps() heuristic in place, I
    can't say I'm clear at all on who should populate "default_interface"
    and who could safely rely on the heuristic if they populate
    supported_interfaces. It's simply put unclear what is the expectation
    from driver authors.

For (b) I was thinking that making it a separate function would make it
clearer that it isn't for everyone. Doing just that wouldn't solve everything,
so I've also said that adding more documentation to this function
prototype would go a long way.

Some dsa_switch_ops already have inline comments in include/net/dsa.h,
see get_tag_protocol, change_tag_protocol, port_change_mtu. Also, there
is the the "PHY devices and link management" chapter in Documentation/networking/dsa/dsa.rst.
We have places to document what the DSA framework expects drivers to do.
I was expecting that wherever default_interface gets reported, we could
see some answers and explanations to the questions above.

> > Also, perhaps more importantly, a real effort needs to be put to prevent
> > breakage for drivers that work without a phylink instance registered for
> > the CPU port, and also don't report the default interface. Practically
> > that just means not deleting the current logic, but making it one of 3
> > options.
> > 
> > fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
> >        /                             \
> >  yes  /                               \ no
> >      /                                 \
> > register with phylink         can we determine the link parameters to create
> >                                   a fixed-link software node?
> >                                        /                \                     \
> >                                  yes  /                  \  no                |
> >                                      /                    \                   | this is missing
> >                                     /                      \                  |
> >              create the software node and       don't put the port down,      |
> >              register with phylink              don't register with phylink   /
> 
> This is exactly what we have today,

Wait a minute, how come this is exactly what we have "today"?

In tree we have this:

fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
       /                             \
 yes  /                               \  no
     /                                 \
register with phylink                   \
                             don't put the port down,
                             don't register with phylink


In your patch set we have this:


fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
       /                             \
 yes  /                               \ no
     /                                 \
register with phylink         can we determine the link parameters to create
                                  a fixed-link software node?
                                       /                \
                                 yes  /                  \  no
                                     /                    \
                                    /                      \
             create the software node and            fail to create the port
             register with phylink

> and is exactly what I'm trying to get rid of, so we have _consistency_
> in the implementation, to prevent fuckups like I've created by
> converting many DSA drivers to use phylink_pcs. Any DSA driver that
> used a PCS for the DSA or CPu port and has been converted to
> phylink_pcs support has been broken in the last few kernel cycles. I'm
> trying to address that breakage before converting the Marvell DSA
> driver - which is the driver that highlighted the problem.

You are essentially saying that it's of no use to keep in DSA the
fallback logic of not registering with phylink, because the phylink_pcs
conversions have broken the defaulting functionality already in all
other drivers.

I may have missed something, but this is new information to me.
Specifically, before you've said that it is *this* patch set which would
risk introducing breakage (by forcing a link down + a phylink creation).
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/YsCqFM8qM1h1MKu%2F@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
What you're saying now directly contradicts that.

Do you have concrete evidence that there is actually any regression of
this kind introduced by prior phylink_pcs conversions? Because if there
is, I retract the proposal to keep the fallback logic.

> We need to move away from the current model in DSA where we only use
> stuff in random situations.
> 
> Well, at this point, I'm just going to give up with this kernel cycle.
> It seems impossible to get this sorted. It seems impossible to move
> forward with the conversion of Marvell DSA to phylink_pcs. In fact,
> I might just give up with the idea of further phylink development
> because it's just too fucking difficult, and getting feedback is just
> impossible.
> 
> -- 
> RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
> FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:57:20PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > The problem is this - we call get_caps(), and we have to read registers
> > > to work out what the port supports. If we have a separate callback, then
> > > we need to re-read those registers to get the same information to report
> > > what the default interface should be.
> > > 
> > > Since almost all of the Marvell implementations the values for both the
> > > list of supported interfaces and the default interface both require
> > > reading a register and translating it to a phy_interface_t, and then
> > > setting the support mask, it seems logical to combine these two
> > > functioalities into one function.
> > 
> > In essence that doesn't mean much; DSA isn't Marvell only, but I'll give
> > it to you: if only the Marvell driver (and Broadcom later, I expect) is
> > going to add support for the context-specific interpretation of CPU port
> > OF nodes, then we may consider tailoring the implementation to their
> > hardware register layout details. In any case, my concern can be
> > addressed even if you insist on keeping the default interface as an
> > argument of phylink_get_caps. There just needs to be a lot more
> > documentation explaining who needs to populate that argument and why.
> 
> I don't get the point you're making here.

The point I'm making is that I dislike where this is going. The addition
of "default_interface" to phylink_get_caps is confusing because it lacks
proper qualifiers.

The concrete reasons why it's confusing are:

(a) there is no comment which specifies on which kinds of ports (DSA and CPU)
    the default_interface will be used. This might result in useless effort
    from driver authors to report a default_interface for a port where it
    will never be asked for.

(b) there is no comment which specifies that only the drivers which have
    DT blobs with missing phylink bindings on CPU and DSA ports should
    fill this out. I wouldn't want to see a new driver use this facility,
    I just don't see a reason for it. I'd rather see a comment that the
    recommendation for new drivers is to validate their bindings and not
    rely on context-specific interpretations of empty DT nodes.

(c) especially with the dsa_port_find_max_caps() heuristic in place, I
    can't say I'm clear at all on who should populate "default_interface"
    and who could safely rely on the heuristic if they populate
    supported_interfaces. It's simply put unclear what is the expectation
    from driver authors.

For (b) I was thinking that making it a separate function would make it
clearer that it isn't for everyone. Doing just that wouldn't solve everything,
so I've also said that adding more documentation to this function
prototype would go a long way.

Some dsa_switch_ops already have inline comments in include/net/dsa.h,
see get_tag_protocol, change_tag_protocol, port_change_mtu. Also, there
is the the "PHY devices and link management" chapter in Documentation/networking/dsa/dsa.rst.
We have places to document what the DSA framework expects drivers to do.
I was expecting that wherever default_interface gets reported, we could
see some answers and explanations to the questions above.

> > Also, perhaps more importantly, a real effort needs to be put to prevent
> > breakage for drivers that work without a phylink instance registered for
> > the CPU port, and also don't report the default interface. Practically
> > that just means not deleting the current logic, but making it one of 3
> > options.
> > 
> > fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
> >        /                             \
> >  yes  /                               \ no
> >      /                                 \
> > register with phylink         can we determine the link parameters to create
> >                                   a fixed-link software node?
> >                                        /                \                     \
> >                                  yes  /                  \  no                |
> >                                      /                    \                   | this is missing
> >                                     /                      \                  |
> >              create the software node and       don't put the port down,      |
> >              register with phylink              don't register with phylink   /
> 
> This is exactly what we have today,

Wait a minute, how come this is exactly what we have "today"?

In tree we have this:

fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
       /                             \
 yes  /                               \  no
     /                                 \
register with phylink                   \
                             don't put the port down,
                             don't register with phylink


In your patch set we have this:


fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
       /                             \
 yes  /                               \ no
     /                                 \
register with phylink         can we determine the link parameters to create
                                  a fixed-link software node?
                                       /                \
                                 yes  /                  \  no
                                     /                    \
                                    /                      \
             create the software node and            fail to create the port
             register with phylink

> and is exactly what I'm trying to get rid of, so we have _consistency_
> in the implementation, to prevent fuckups like I've created by
> converting many DSA drivers to use phylink_pcs. Any DSA driver that
> used a PCS for the DSA or CPu port and has been converted to
> phylink_pcs support has been broken in the last few kernel cycles. I'm
> trying to address that breakage before converting the Marvell DSA
> driver - which is the driver that highlighted the problem.

You are essentially saying that it's of no use to keep in DSA the
fallback logic of not registering with phylink, because the phylink_pcs
conversions have broken the defaulting functionality already in all
other drivers.

I may have missed something, but this is new information to me.
Specifically, before you've said that it is *this* patch set which would
risk introducing breakage (by forcing a link down + a phylink creation).
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/YsCqFM8qM1h1MKu%2F@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
What you're saying now directly contradicts that.

Do you have concrete evidence that there is actually any regression of
this kind introduced by prior phylink_pcs conversions? Because if there
is, I retract the proposal to keep the fallback logic.

> We need to move away from the current model in DSA where we only use
> stuff in random situations.
> 
> Well, at this point, I'm just going to give up with this kernel cycle.
> It seems impossible to get this sorted. It seems impossible to move
> forward with the conversion of Marvell DSA to phylink_pcs. In fact,
> I might just give up with the idea of further phylink development
> because it's just too fucking difficult, and getting feedback is just
> impossible.
> 
> -- 
> RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
> FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 01:57:11PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:57:20PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > The problem is this - we call get_caps(), and we have to read registers
> > > > to work out what the port supports. If we have a separate callback, then
> > > > we need to re-read those registers to get the same information to report
> > > > what the default interface should be.
> > > > 
> > > > Since almost all of the Marvell implementations the values for both the
> > > > list of supported interfaces and the default interface both require
> > > > reading a register and translating it to a phy_interface_t, and then
> > > > setting the support mask, it seems logical to combine these two
> > > > functioalities into one function.
> > > 
> > > In essence that doesn't mean much; DSA isn't Marvell only, but I'll give
> > > it to you: if only the Marvell driver (and Broadcom later, I expect) is
> > > going to add support for the context-specific interpretation of CPU port
> > > OF nodes, then we may consider tailoring the implementation to their
> > > hardware register layout details. In any case, my concern can be
> > > addressed even if you insist on keeping the default interface as an
> > > argument of phylink_get_caps. There just needs to be a lot more
> > > documentation explaining who needs to populate that argument and why.
> > 
> > I don't get the point you're making here.
> 
> The point I'm making is that I dislike where this is going. The addition
> of "default_interface" to phylink_get_caps is confusing because it lacks
> proper qualifiers.
> 
> The concrete reasons why it's confusing are:
> 
> (a) there is no comment which specifies on which kinds of ports (DSA and CPU)
>     the default_interface will be used. This might result in useless effort
>     from driver authors to report a default_interface for a port where it
>     will never be asked for.
> 
> (b) there is no comment which specifies that only the drivers which have
>     DT blobs with missing phylink bindings on CPU and DSA ports should
>     fill this out. I wouldn't want to see a new driver use this facility,
>     I just don't see a reason for it. I'd rather see a comment that the
>     recommendation for new drivers is to validate their bindings and not
>     rely on context-specific interpretations of empty DT nodes.
> 
> (c) especially with the dsa_port_find_max_caps() heuristic in place, I
>     can't say I'm clear at all on who should populate "default_interface"
>     and who could safely rely on the heuristic if they populate
>     supported_interfaces. It's simply put unclear what is the expectation
>     from driver authors.
> 
> For (b) I was thinking that making it a separate function would make it
> clearer that it isn't for everyone. Doing just that wouldn't solve everything,
> so I've also said that adding more documentation to this function
> prototype would go a long way.
> 
> Some dsa_switch_ops already have inline comments in include/net/dsa.h,
> see get_tag_protocol, change_tag_protocol, port_change_mtu. Also, there
> is the the "PHY devices and link management" chapter in Documentation/networking/dsa/dsa.rst.
> We have places to document what the DSA framework expects drivers to do.
> I was expecting that wherever default_interface gets reported, we could
> see some answers and explanations to the questions above.

Thanks for clarifying.

> > > Also, perhaps more importantly, a real effort needs to be put to prevent
> > > breakage for drivers that work without a phylink instance registered for
> > > the CPU port, and also don't report the default interface. Practically
> > > that just means not deleting the current logic, but making it one of 3
> > > options.
> > > 
> > > fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
> > >        /                             \
> > >  yes  /                               \ no
> > >      /                                 \
> > > register with phylink         can we determine the link parameters to create
> > >                                   a fixed-link software node?
> > >                                        /                \                     \
> > >                                  yes  /                  \  no                |
> > >                                      /                    \                   | this is missing
> > >                                     /                      \                  |
> > >              create the software node and       don't put the port down,      |
> > >              register with phylink              don't register with phylink   /
> > 
> > This is exactly what we have today,
> 
> Wait a minute, how come this is exactly what we have "today"?
> 
> In tree we have this:
> 
> fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
>        /                             \
>  yes  /                               \  no
>      /                                 \
> register with phylink                   \
>                              don't put the port down,
>                              don't register with phylink
> 
> 
> In your patch set we have this:
> 
> 
> fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
>        /                             \
>  yes  /                               \ no
>      /                                 \
> register with phylink         can we determine the link parameters to create
>                                   a fixed-link software node?
>                                        /                \
>                                  yes  /                  \  no
>                                      /                    \
>                                     /                      \
>              create the software node and            fail to create the port
>              register with phylink
> 
> > and is exactly what I'm trying to get rid of, so we have _consistency_
> > in the implementation, to prevent fuckups like I've created by
> > converting many DSA drivers to use phylink_pcs. Any DSA driver that
> > used a PCS for the DSA or CPu port and has been converted to
> > phylink_pcs support has been broken in the last few kernel cycles. I'm
> > trying to address that breakage before converting the Marvell DSA
> > driver - which is the driver that highlighted the problem.
> 
> You are essentially saying that it's of no use to keep in DSA the
> fallback logic of not registering with phylink, because the phylink_pcs
> conversions have broken the defaulting functionality already in all
> other drivers.

Correct, and I don't want these exceptions precisely because it creates
stupid mistakes like the one I've highlighted. If we have one way of
doing something, then development becomes much easier. When we have
multiple different ways, mistakes happen, stuff breaks.

> I may have missed something, but this is new information to me.
> Specifically, before you've said that it is *this* patch set which would
> risk introducing breakage (by forcing a link down + a phylink creation).
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/YsCqFM8qM1h1MKu%2F@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> What you're saying now directly contradicts that.

No, it is not contradictory at all.

There is previous breakage caused by converting DSA drivers to
phylink_pcs - because the PCS code will *not* be called where a driver
makes use of the "default-to-fastest-speed" mechanism, so is likely
broken. Some drivers work around this by doing things manually.

This series *also* risks breakage, because it means phylink gets used
in more situations which could confuse drivers - such as those which
have manually brought stuff up and are not expecting phylink to also
do it. Or those which do not fill in the mac_capabilities but do
default to this "fastest-speed" mechanism. Or some other unforseen
scenario.

So there's known breakage - which we know because we've tripped over
the issue with mv88e6xxx pcs conversion which isn't in net-next yet,
but illustrates the issue, and there's unknown breakage through
applying this patch and not having had test feedback from all the
DSA driver authors.

There are no contradiction there what so ever.

> Do you have concrete evidence that there is actually any regression of
> this kind introduced by prior phylink_pcs conversions? Because if there
> is, I retract the proposal to keep the fallback logic.

Since we have no idea which DSA drivers make use of this "default-to-
fastest-speed", and Andrew who has been promoting this doesn't seem to
know which drivers make use of this, I do not, but we know that the
breakage does occur if someone does make use of this with one of the
converted DSA drivers through the behaviour of mv88e6xxx. Just because
no one has reported it yet does not mean it doesn't exist. Not everyone
updates their kernels each time Linus releases a final kernel version,
especially in the embedded world. Sometimes it can take until a LTS
release until people move forward, which we think will be 5.21.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 01:57:11PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:57:20PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > The problem is this - we call get_caps(), and we have to read registers
> > > > to work out what the port supports. If we have a separate callback, then
> > > > we need to re-read those registers to get the same information to report
> > > > what the default interface should be.
> > > > 
> > > > Since almost all of the Marvell implementations the values for both the
> > > > list of supported interfaces and the default interface both require
> > > > reading a register and translating it to a phy_interface_t, and then
> > > > setting the support mask, it seems logical to combine these two
> > > > functioalities into one function.
> > > 
> > > In essence that doesn't mean much; DSA isn't Marvell only, but I'll give
> > > it to you: if only the Marvell driver (and Broadcom later, I expect) is
> > > going to add support for the context-specific interpretation of CPU port
> > > OF nodes, then we may consider tailoring the implementation to their
> > > hardware register layout details. In any case, my concern can be
> > > addressed even if you insist on keeping the default interface as an
> > > argument of phylink_get_caps. There just needs to be a lot more
> > > documentation explaining who needs to populate that argument and why.
> > 
> > I don't get the point you're making here.
> 
> The point I'm making is that I dislike where this is going. The addition
> of "default_interface" to phylink_get_caps is confusing because it lacks
> proper qualifiers.
> 
> The concrete reasons why it's confusing are:
> 
> (a) there is no comment which specifies on which kinds of ports (DSA and CPU)
>     the default_interface will be used. This might result in useless effort
>     from driver authors to report a default_interface for a port where it
>     will never be asked for.
> 
> (b) there is no comment which specifies that only the drivers which have
>     DT blobs with missing phylink bindings on CPU and DSA ports should
>     fill this out. I wouldn't want to see a new driver use this facility,
>     I just don't see a reason for it. I'd rather see a comment that the
>     recommendation for new drivers is to validate their bindings and not
>     rely on context-specific interpretations of empty DT nodes.
> 
> (c) especially with the dsa_port_find_max_caps() heuristic in place, I
>     can't say I'm clear at all on who should populate "default_interface"
>     and who could safely rely on the heuristic if they populate
>     supported_interfaces. It's simply put unclear what is the expectation
>     from driver authors.
> 
> For (b) I was thinking that making it a separate function would make it
> clearer that it isn't for everyone. Doing just that wouldn't solve everything,
> so I've also said that adding more documentation to this function
> prototype would go a long way.
> 
> Some dsa_switch_ops already have inline comments in include/net/dsa.h,
> see get_tag_protocol, change_tag_protocol, port_change_mtu. Also, there
> is the the "PHY devices and link management" chapter in Documentation/networking/dsa/dsa.rst.
> We have places to document what the DSA framework expects drivers to do.
> I was expecting that wherever default_interface gets reported, we could
> see some answers and explanations to the questions above.

Thanks for clarifying.

> > > Also, perhaps more importantly, a real effort needs to be put to prevent
> > > breakage for drivers that work without a phylink instance registered for
> > > the CPU port, and also don't report the default interface. Practically
> > > that just means not deleting the current logic, but making it one of 3
> > > options.
> > > 
> > > fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
> > >        /                             \
> > >  yes  /                               \ no
> > >      /                                 \
> > > register with phylink         can we determine the link parameters to create
> > >                                   a fixed-link software node?
> > >                                        /                \                     \
> > >                                  yes  /                  \  no                |
> > >                                      /                    \                   | this is missing
> > >                                     /                      \                  |
> > >              create the software node and       don't put the port down,      |
> > >              register with phylink              don't register with phylink   /
> > 
> > This is exactly what we have today,
> 
> Wait a minute, how come this is exactly what we have "today"?
> 
> In tree we have this:
> 
> fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
>        /                             \
>  yes  /                               \  no
>      /                                 \
> register with phylink                   \
>                              don't put the port down,
>                              don't register with phylink
> 
> 
> In your patch set we have this:
> 
> 
> fwnode is valid from phylink's perspective?
>        /                             \
>  yes  /                               \ no
>      /                                 \
> register with phylink         can we determine the link parameters to create
>                                   a fixed-link software node?
>                                        /                \
>                                  yes  /                  \  no
>                                      /                    \
>                                     /                      \
>              create the software node and            fail to create the port
>              register with phylink
> 
> > and is exactly what I'm trying to get rid of, so we have _consistency_
> > in the implementation, to prevent fuckups like I've created by
> > converting many DSA drivers to use phylink_pcs. Any DSA driver that
> > used a PCS for the DSA or CPu port and has been converted to
> > phylink_pcs support has been broken in the last few kernel cycles. I'm
> > trying to address that breakage before converting the Marvell DSA
> > driver - which is the driver that highlighted the problem.
> 
> You are essentially saying that it's of no use to keep in DSA the
> fallback logic of not registering with phylink, because the phylink_pcs
> conversions have broken the defaulting functionality already in all
> other drivers.

Correct, and I don't want these exceptions precisely because it creates
stupid mistakes like the one I've highlighted. If we have one way of
doing something, then development becomes much easier. When we have
multiple different ways, mistakes happen, stuff breaks.

> I may have missed something, but this is new information to me.
> Specifically, before you've said that it is *this* patch set which would
> risk introducing breakage (by forcing a link down + a phylink creation).
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/YsCqFM8qM1h1MKu%2F@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> What you're saying now directly contradicts that.

No, it is not contradictory at all.

There is previous breakage caused by converting DSA drivers to
phylink_pcs - because the PCS code will *not* be called where a driver
makes use of the "default-to-fastest-speed" mechanism, so is likely
broken. Some drivers work around this by doing things manually.

This series *also* risks breakage, because it means phylink gets used
in more situations which could confuse drivers - such as those which
have manually brought stuff up and are not expecting phylink to also
do it. Or those which do not fill in the mac_capabilities but do
default to this "fastest-speed" mechanism. Or some other unforseen
scenario.

So there's known breakage - which we know because we've tripped over
the issue with mv88e6xxx pcs conversion which isn't in net-next yet,
but illustrates the issue, and there's unknown breakage through
applying this patch and not having had test feedback from all the
DSA driver authors.

There are no contradiction there what so ever.

> Do you have concrete evidence that there is actually any regression of
> this kind introduced by prior phylink_pcs conversions? Because if there
> is, I retract the proposal to keep the fallback logic.

Since we have no idea which DSA drivers make use of this "default-to-
fastest-speed", and Andrew who has been promoting this doesn't seem to
know which drivers make use of this, I do not, but we know that the
breakage does occur if someone does make use of this with one of the
converted DSA drivers through the behaviour of mv88e6xxx. Just because
no one has reported it yet does not mean it doesn't exist. Not everyone
updates their kernels each time Linus releases a final kernel version,
especially in the embedded world. Sometimes it can take until a LTS
release until people move forward, which we think will be 5.21.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 04:03:59PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 21:59:24 +0100 Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > The only thing that delayed them was your eventual comments about
> > re-working how it was being done. Yet again, posting the RFC series
> > created very little in the way of feedback. I'm getting to the point
> > of thinking its a waste of time posting RFC patches - it's counter
> > productive. RFC means "request for comments" but it seems that many
> > interpret it as "I can ignore it".
> 
> I'm afraid you are correct. Dave used to occasionally apply RFC patches
> which kept reviewers on their toes a little bit (it kept me for sure).
> These days patchwork automatically marks patches as RFC based on
> the subject, tossing them out of "Action required" queue. So they are
> extremely easy to ignore.
> 
> Perhaps an alternative way of posting would be to write "RFC only,
> please don't apply" at the end of the cover letter. Maybe folks will 
> at least get thru reading the cover letter then :S

Again, expressing complaints to me for responding late is misdirected
frustration. The fact that I chose to leave my comments only when
Russell gave up on waiting for feedback from Andrew doesn't mean I
ignored his RFC patches, it just means I didn't want to add noise and
ask for minor changes when it wasn't clear that this is the overall
final direction that the series would follow. I still have preferences
about the way in which this patch set gets accepted, and now seems like
the proper moment to express them.

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 04:03:59PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 21:59:24 +0100 Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > The only thing that delayed them was your eventual comments about
> > re-working how it was being done. Yet again, posting the RFC series
> > created very little in the way of feedback. I'm getting to the point
> > of thinking its a waste of time posting RFC patches - it's counter
> > productive. RFC means "request for comments" but it seems that many
> > interpret it as "I can ignore it".
> 
> I'm afraid you are correct. Dave used to occasionally apply RFC patches
> which kept reviewers on their toes a little bit (it kept me for sure).
> These days patchwork automatically marks patches as RFC based on
> the subject, tossing them out of "Action required" queue. So they are
> extremely easy to ignore.
> 
> Perhaps an alternative way of posting would be to write "RFC only,
> please don't apply" at the end of the cover letter. Maybe folks will 
> at least get thru reading the cover letter then :S

Again, expressing complaints to me for responding late is misdirected
frustration. The fact that I chose to leave my comments only when
Russell gave up on waiting for feedback from Andrew doesn't mean I
ignored his RFC patches, it just means I didn't want to add noise and
ask for minor changes when it wasn't clear that this is the overall
final direction that the series would follow. I still have preferences
about the way in which this patch set gets accepted, and now seems like
the proper moment to express them.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 02:15:51PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 04:03:59PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 21:59:24 +0100 Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > The only thing that delayed them was your eventual comments about
> > > re-working how it was being done. Yet again, posting the RFC series
> > > created very little in the way of feedback. I'm getting to the point
> > > of thinking its a waste of time posting RFC patches - it's counter
> > > productive. RFC means "request for comments" but it seems that many
> > > interpret it as "I can ignore it".
> > 
> > I'm afraid you are correct. Dave used to occasionally apply RFC patches
> > which kept reviewers on their toes a little bit (it kept me for sure).
> > These days patchwork automatically marks patches as RFC based on
> > the subject, tossing them out of "Action required" queue. So they are
> > extremely easy to ignore.
> > 
> > Perhaps an alternative way of posting would be to write "RFC only,
> > please don't apply" at the end of the cover letter. Maybe folks will 
> > at least get thru reading the cover letter then :S
> 
> Again, expressing complaints to me for responding late is misdirected
> frustration. The fact that I chose to leave my comments only when
> Russell gave up on waiting for feedback from Andrew doesn't mean I
> ignored his RFC patches, it just means I didn't want to add noise and
> ask for minor changes when it wasn't clear that this is the overall
> final direction that the series would follow. I still have preferences
> about the way in which this patch set gets accepted, and now seems like
> the proper moment to express them.

In the first RFC series I sent on the 24 June, I explicitly asked the
following questions:

Obvious questions:
1. Should phylink_get_caps() be augmented in this way, or should it be
   a separate method?

2. DSA has traditionally used "interface mode for the maximum supported
   speed on this port" where the interface mode is programmable (via
   its internal port_max_speed_mode() method) but this is only present
   for a few of the sub-drivers. Is reporting the current interface
   mode correct where this method is not implemented?

Obvious questions:
1. Should we be allowing half-duplex for this?
2. If we do allow half-duplex, should we prefer fastest speed over
   duplex setting, or should we prefer fastest full-duplex speed
   over any half-duplex?
3. How do we sanely switch DSA from its current behaviour to always
   using phylink for these ports without breakage - this is the
   difficult one, because it's not obvious which drivers have been
   coded to either work around this quirk of the DSA implementation.
   For example, if we start forcing the link down before calling
   dsa_port_phylink_create(), and we then fail to set max-fixed-link,
   then the CPU/DSA port is going to fail, and we're going to have
   lots of regressions.

I even stated: "Please look at the patches and make suggestions on how
we can proceed to clean up this quirk of DSA." and made no mention of
wanting something explicitly from Andrew.

Yet, none of those questions were answered.

So no, Jakub's comments are *not* misdirected at all. Go back and read
my June 24th RFC series yourself:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/YrWi5oBFn7vR15BH@shell.armlinux.org.uk/

I've *tried* my best to be kind and collaborative, but I've been
ignored. Now I'm hacked off. This could have been avoided by responding
to my explicit questions sooner, rather than at the -rc6/-rc7 stage of
the show.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 02:15:51PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 04:03:59PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 21:59:24 +0100 Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > The only thing that delayed them was your eventual comments about
> > > re-working how it was being done. Yet again, posting the RFC series
> > > created very little in the way of feedback. I'm getting to the point
> > > of thinking its a waste of time posting RFC patches - it's counter
> > > productive. RFC means "request for comments" but it seems that many
> > > interpret it as "I can ignore it".
> > 
> > I'm afraid you are correct. Dave used to occasionally apply RFC patches
> > which kept reviewers on their toes a little bit (it kept me for sure).
> > These days patchwork automatically marks patches as RFC based on
> > the subject, tossing them out of "Action required" queue. So they are
> > extremely easy to ignore.
> > 
> > Perhaps an alternative way of posting would be to write "RFC only,
> > please don't apply" at the end of the cover letter. Maybe folks will 
> > at least get thru reading the cover letter then :S
> 
> Again, expressing complaints to me for responding late is misdirected
> frustration. The fact that I chose to leave my comments only when
> Russell gave up on waiting for feedback from Andrew doesn't mean I
> ignored his RFC patches, it just means I didn't want to add noise and
> ask for minor changes when it wasn't clear that this is the overall
> final direction that the series would follow. I still have preferences
> about the way in which this patch set gets accepted, and now seems like
> the proper moment to express them.

In the first RFC series I sent on the 24 June, I explicitly asked the
following questions:

Obvious questions:
1. Should phylink_get_caps() be augmented in this way, or should it be
   a separate method?

2. DSA has traditionally used "interface mode for the maximum supported
   speed on this port" where the interface mode is programmable (via
   its internal port_max_speed_mode() method) but this is only present
   for a few of the sub-drivers. Is reporting the current interface
   mode correct where this method is not implemented?

Obvious questions:
1. Should we be allowing half-duplex for this?
2. If we do allow half-duplex, should we prefer fastest speed over
   duplex setting, or should we prefer fastest full-duplex speed
   over any half-duplex?
3. How do we sanely switch DSA from its current behaviour to always
   using phylink for these ports without breakage - this is the
   difficult one, because it's not obvious which drivers have been
   coded to either work around this quirk of the DSA implementation.
   For example, if we start forcing the link down before calling
   dsa_port_phylink_create(), and we then fail to set max-fixed-link,
   then the CPU/DSA port is going to fail, and we're going to have
   lots of regressions.

I even stated: "Please look at the patches and make suggestions on how
we can proceed to clean up this quirk of DSA." and made no mention of
wanting something explicitly from Andrew.

Yet, none of those questions were answered.

So no, Jakub's comments are *not* misdirected at all. Go back and read
my June 24th RFC series yourself:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/YrWi5oBFn7vR15BH@shell.armlinux.org.uk/

I've *tried* my best to be kind and collaborative, but I've been
ignored. Now I'm hacked off. This could have been avoided by responding
to my explicit questions sooner, rather than at the -rc6/-rc7 stage of
the show.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:13:55PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > and is exactly what I'm trying to get rid of, so we have _consistency_
> > > in the implementation, to prevent fuckups like I've created by
> > > converting many DSA drivers to use phylink_pcs. Any DSA driver that
> > > used a PCS for the DSA or CPu port and has been converted to
> > > phylink_pcs support has been broken in the last few kernel cycles. I'm
> > > trying to address that breakage before converting the Marvell DSA
> > > driver - which is the driver that highlighted the problem.
> > 
> > You are essentially saying that it's of no use to keep in DSA the
> > fallback logic of not registering with phylink, because the phylink_pcs
> > conversions have broken the defaulting functionality already in all
> > other drivers.
> 
> Correct, and I don't want these exceptions precisely because it creates
> stupid mistakes like the one I've highlighted. If we have one way of
> doing something, then development becomes much easier. When we have
> multiple different ways, mistakes happen, stuff breaks.

Agree that when we have multiple different ways, mistakes happen and
stuff breaks. This is also why I want to avoid the proliferation of the
default_interface reporting when most of the drivers were just fine
without it. It needs to be opt-in, and checking for the presence of a
dedicated function is an easy way to check for that opt-in.

> > I may have missed something, but this is new information to me.
> > Specifically, before you've said that it is *this* patch set which would
> > risk introducing breakage (by forcing a link down + a phylink creation).
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/YsCqFM8qM1h1MKu%2F@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> > What you're saying now directly contradicts that.
> 
> No, it is not contradictory at all.
> 
> There is previous breakage caused by converting DSA drivers to
> phylink_pcs - because the PCS code will *not* be called where a driver
> makes use of the "default-to-fastest-speed" mechanism, so is likely
> broken. Some drivers work around this by doing things manually.

Marvell conversion to phylink_pcs doesn't count as "previous" breakage
if it's not in net-next.

> This series *also* risks breakage, because it means phylink gets used
> in more situations which could confuse drivers - such as those which
> have manually brought stuff up and are not expecting phylink to also
> do it. Or those which do not fill in the mac_capabilities but do
> default to this "fastest-speed" mechanism. Or some other unforseen
> scenario.

I don't exactly understand the mechanics through which a phylink_pcs
conversion would break a driver that used defaulting behavior,
but I can only imagine it involves moving code that didn't depend on
phylink, to phylink callbacks. It's hard to say whether that happened
for any of the phylink_pcs conversions in net-next.

But drivers could also have their CPU port working simply because those
are internal to an SoC and don't need any software configuration to pass
traffic. In their case, there is no breakage caused by the phylink_pcs
conversion, but breakage caused by sudden registration of phylink is
plausible, if phylink doesn't get the link parameters right.

And that breakage is preventable. Gradually more drivers could be
converted to create a fixed-link software node by printing a warning
that they should, and still keep the logic to avoid phylink registration
and putting the respective port down. Driver authors might not be very
responsive to RFC patch sets, but they do look at new warnings in dmesg
and try to see what they're about.

What I'm missing is the proof that the phylink_pcs conversion has broken
those kinds of switches, and that it's therefore pointless to keep the
existing logic for them. Sorry, but you didn't provide it.

> So there's known breakage - which we know because we've tripped over
> the issue with mv88e6xxx pcs conversion which isn't in net-next yet,
> but illustrates the issue, and there's unknown breakage through
> applying this patch and not having had test feedback from all the
> DSA driver authors.
> 
> There are no contradiction there what so ever.
> 
> > Do you have concrete evidence that there is actually any regression of
> > this kind introduced by prior phylink_pcs conversions? Because if there
> > is, I retract the proposal to keep the fallback logic.
> 
> Since we have no idea which DSA drivers make use of this "default-to-
> fastest-speed", and Andrew who has been promoting this doesn't seem to
> know which drivers make use of this, I do not, but we know that the
> breakage does occur if someone does make use of this with one of the
> converted DSA drivers through the behaviour of mv88e6xxx. Just because
> no one has reported it yet does not mean it doesn't exist. Not everyone
> updates their kernels each time Linus releases a final kernel version,
> especially in the embedded world. Sometimes it can take until a LTS
> release until people move forward, which we think will be 5.21.

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:13:55PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > and is exactly what I'm trying to get rid of, so we have _consistency_
> > > in the implementation, to prevent fuckups like I've created by
> > > converting many DSA drivers to use phylink_pcs. Any DSA driver that
> > > used a PCS for the DSA or CPu port and has been converted to
> > > phylink_pcs support has been broken in the last few kernel cycles. I'm
> > > trying to address that breakage before converting the Marvell DSA
> > > driver - which is the driver that highlighted the problem.
> > 
> > You are essentially saying that it's of no use to keep in DSA the
> > fallback logic of not registering with phylink, because the phylink_pcs
> > conversions have broken the defaulting functionality already in all
> > other drivers.
> 
> Correct, and I don't want these exceptions precisely because it creates
> stupid mistakes like the one I've highlighted. If we have one way of
> doing something, then development becomes much easier. When we have
> multiple different ways, mistakes happen, stuff breaks.

Agree that when we have multiple different ways, mistakes happen and
stuff breaks. This is also why I want to avoid the proliferation of the
default_interface reporting when most of the drivers were just fine
without it. It needs to be opt-in, and checking for the presence of a
dedicated function is an easy way to check for that opt-in.

> > I may have missed something, but this is new information to me.
> > Specifically, before you've said that it is *this* patch set which would
> > risk introducing breakage (by forcing a link down + a phylink creation).
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/YsCqFM8qM1h1MKu%2F@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> > What you're saying now directly contradicts that.
> 
> No, it is not contradictory at all.
> 
> There is previous breakage caused by converting DSA drivers to
> phylink_pcs - because the PCS code will *not* be called where a driver
> makes use of the "default-to-fastest-speed" mechanism, so is likely
> broken. Some drivers work around this by doing things manually.

Marvell conversion to phylink_pcs doesn't count as "previous" breakage
if it's not in net-next.

> This series *also* risks breakage, because it means phylink gets used
> in more situations which could confuse drivers - such as those which
> have manually brought stuff up and are not expecting phylink to also
> do it. Or those which do not fill in the mac_capabilities but do
> default to this "fastest-speed" mechanism. Or some other unforseen
> scenario.

I don't exactly understand the mechanics through which a phylink_pcs
conversion would break a driver that used defaulting behavior,
but I can only imagine it involves moving code that didn't depend on
phylink, to phylink callbacks. It's hard to say whether that happened
for any of the phylink_pcs conversions in net-next.

But drivers could also have their CPU port working simply because those
are internal to an SoC and don't need any software configuration to pass
traffic. In their case, there is no breakage caused by the phylink_pcs
conversion, but breakage caused by sudden registration of phylink is
plausible, if phylink doesn't get the link parameters right.

And that breakage is preventable. Gradually more drivers could be
converted to create a fixed-link software node by printing a warning
that they should, and still keep the logic to avoid phylink registration
and putting the respective port down. Driver authors might not be very
responsive to RFC patch sets, but they do look at new warnings in dmesg
and try to see what they're about.

What I'm missing is the proof that the phylink_pcs conversion has broken
those kinds of switches, and that it's therefore pointless to keep the
existing logic for them. Sorry, but you didn't provide it.

> So there's known breakage - which we know because we've tripped over
> the issue with mv88e6xxx pcs conversion which isn't in net-next yet,
> but illustrates the issue, and there's unknown breakage through
> applying this patch and not having had test feedback from all the
> DSA driver authors.
> 
> There are no contradiction there what so ever.
> 
> > Do you have concrete evidence that there is actually any regression of
> > this kind introduced by prior phylink_pcs conversions? Because if there
> > is, I retract the proposal to keep the fallback logic.
> 
> Since we have no idea which DSA drivers make use of this "default-to-
> fastest-speed", and Andrew who has been promoting this doesn't seem to
> know which drivers make use of this, I do not, but we know that the
> breakage does occur if someone does make use of this with one of the
> converted DSA drivers through the behaviour of mv88e6xxx. Just because
> no one has reported it yet does not mean it doesn't exist. Not everyone
> updates their kernels each time Linus releases a final kernel version,
> especially in the embedded world. Sometimes it can take until a LTS
> release until people move forward, which we think will be 5.21.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:43:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> In the first RFC series I sent on the 24 June, I explicitly asked the
> following questions:
(...)
> I even stated: "Please look at the patches and make suggestions on how
> we can proceed to clean up this quirk of DSA." and made no mention of
> wanting something explicitly from Andrew.
> 
> Yet, none of those questions were answered.
> 
> So no, Jakub's comments are *not* misdirected at all. Go back and read
> my June 24th RFC series yourself:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/YrWi5oBFn7vR15BH@shell.armlinux.org.uk/

I don't believe I need to justify myself any further for why I didn't
leave a comment on any certain day. I left my comments when I believed
it was most appropriate for me to intervene (as someone who isn't really
affected in any way by the changes, except for generally maintaining
what's in net/dsa/, and wanting to keep a clean framework structure).
Also, to repeat myself, blaming me for leaving comments, but doing so
late, is not really fair. I could have not responded at all, and I
wouldn't be having this unpleasant discussion. It begs the question
whether you're willing to be held accountable in the same way for the
dates on which you respond on RFC patches.

> I've *tried* my best to be kind and collaborative, but I've been
> ignored. Now I'm hacked off. This could have been avoided by responding
> to my explicit questions sooner, rather than at the -rc6/-rc7 stage of
> the show.

I think you should continue to try your best to be kind and collaborative,
you weren't provoked or intentionally ignored in any way, and it isn't
doing these patches any good.

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:43:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> In the first RFC series I sent on the 24 June, I explicitly asked the
> following questions:
(...)
> I even stated: "Please look at the patches and make suggestions on how
> we can proceed to clean up this quirk of DSA." and made no mention of
> wanting something explicitly from Andrew.
> 
> Yet, none of those questions were answered.
> 
> So no, Jakub's comments are *not* misdirected at all. Go back and read
> my June 24th RFC series yourself:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/YrWi5oBFn7vR15BH@shell.armlinux.org.uk/

I don't believe I need to justify myself any further for why I didn't
leave a comment on any certain day. I left my comments when I believed
it was most appropriate for me to intervene (as someone who isn't really
affected in any way by the changes, except for generally maintaining
what's in net/dsa/, and wanting to keep a clean framework structure).
Also, to repeat myself, blaming me for leaving comments, but doing so
late, is not really fair. I could have not responded at all, and I
wouldn't be having this unpleasant discussion. It begs the question
whether you're willing to be held accountable in the same way for the
dates on which you respond on RFC patches.

> I've *tried* my best to be kind and collaborative, but I've been
> ignored. Now I'm hacked off. This could have been avoided by responding
> to my explicit questions sooner, rather than at the -rc6/-rc7 stage of
> the show.

I think you should continue to try your best to be kind and collaborative,
you weren't provoked or intentionally ignored in any way, and it isn't
doing these patches any good.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 14:15:51 +0300 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > I'm afraid you are correct. Dave used to occasionally apply RFC patches
> > which kept reviewers on their toes a little bit (it kept me for sure).
> > These days patchwork automatically marks patches as RFC based on
> > the subject, tossing them out of "Action required" queue. So they are
> > extremely easy to ignore.
> > 
> > Perhaps an alternative way of posting would be to write "RFC only,
> > please don't apply" at the end of the cover letter. Maybe folks will 
> > at least get thru reading the cover letter then :S  
> 
> Again, expressing complaints to me for responding late is misdirected
> frustration. The fact that I chose to leave my comments only when
> Russell gave up on waiting for feedback from Andrew doesn't mean I
> ignored his RFC patches, it just means I didn't want to add noise and
> ask for minor changes when it wasn't clear that this is the overall
> final direction that the series would follow. I still have preferences
> about the way in which this patch set gets accepted, and now seems like
> the proper moment to express them.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't commenting on how things played out for this
series. I was mostly reflecting on the fact that the automatic patch
state updates in patchwork have changed how RFC postings can be used 
on netdev, and it happened without any of us being asked our opinion.

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 14:15:51 +0300 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > I'm afraid you are correct. Dave used to occasionally apply RFC patches
> > which kept reviewers on their toes a little bit (it kept me for sure).
> > These days patchwork automatically marks patches as RFC based on
> > the subject, tossing them out of "Action required" queue. So they are
> > extremely easy to ignore.
> > 
> > Perhaps an alternative way of posting would be to write "RFC only,
> > please don't apply" at the end of the cover letter. Maybe folks will 
> > at least get thru reading the cover letter then :S  
> 
> Again, expressing complaints to me for responding late is misdirected
> frustration. The fact that I chose to leave my comments only when
> Russell gave up on waiting for feedback from Andrew doesn't mean I
> ignored his RFC patches, it just means I didn't want to add noise and
> ask for minor changes when it wasn't clear that this is the overall
> final direction that the series would follow. I still have preferences
> about the way in which this patch set gets accepted, and now seems like
> the proper moment to express them.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't commenting on how things played out for this
series. I was mostly reflecting on the fact that the automatic patch
state updates in patchwork have changed how RFC postings can be used 
on netdev, and it happened without any of us being asked our opinion.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 03:36:08PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:13:55PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > and is exactly what I'm trying to get rid of, so we have _consistency_
> > > > in the implementation, to prevent fuckups like I've created by
> > > > converting many DSA drivers to use phylink_pcs. Any DSA driver that
> > > > used a PCS for the DSA or CPu port and has been converted to
> > > > phylink_pcs support has been broken in the last few kernel cycles. I'm
> > > > trying to address that breakage before converting the Marvell DSA
> > > > driver - which is the driver that highlighted the problem.
> > > 
> > > You are essentially saying that it's of no use to keep in DSA the
> > > fallback logic of not registering with phylink, because the phylink_pcs
> > > conversions have broken the defaulting functionality already in all
> > > other drivers.
> > 
> > Correct, and I don't want these exceptions precisely because it creates
> > stupid mistakes like the one I've highlighted. If we have one way of
> > doing something, then development becomes much easier. When we have
> > multiple different ways, mistakes happen, stuff breaks.
> 
> Agree that when we have multiple different ways, mistakes happen and
> stuff breaks. This is also why I want to avoid the proliferation of the
> default_interface reporting when most of the drivers were just fine
> without it. It needs to be opt-in, and checking for the presence of a
> dedicated function is an easy way to check for that opt-in.
> 
> > > I may have missed something, but this is new information to me.
> > > Specifically, before you've said that it is *this* patch set which would
> > > risk introducing breakage (by forcing a link down + a phylink creation).
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/YsCqFM8qM1h1MKu%2F@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> > > What you're saying now directly contradicts that.
> > 
> > No, it is not contradictory at all.
> > 
> > There is previous breakage caused by converting DSA drivers to
> > phylink_pcs - because the PCS code will *not* be called where a driver
> > makes use of the "default-to-fastest-speed" mechanism, so is likely
> > broken. Some drivers work around this by doing things manually.
> 
> Marvell conversion to phylink_pcs doesn't count as "previous" breakage
> if it's not in net-next.

Thank you for stating the obvious. I never claimed it was.

> > This series *also* risks breakage, because it means phylink gets used
> > in more situations which could confuse drivers - such as those which
> > have manually brought stuff up and are not expecting phylink to also
> > do it. Or those which do not fill in the mac_capabilities but do
> > default to this "fastest-speed" mechanism. Or some other unforseen
> > scenario.
> 
> I don't exactly understand the mechanics through which a phylink_pcs
> conversion would break a driver that used defaulting behavior,
> but I can only imagine it involves moving code that didn't depend on
> phylink, to phylink callbacks. It's hard to say whether that happened
> for any of the phylink_pcs conversions in net-next.

Situation before phylink_pcs conversion:
- code paths that configure the PCS are integrated with the rest of the
  driver and would be called where appropriate.

Situation after phylink_pcs conversion:
- code paths that configure the PCS are no longer integrated with the
  rest of the driver and are now dependent on phylink being used for
  them to be called.

If there is no problem with doing this conversion, then why has the
proposed conversion of mv88e6xxx caused breakage when it was working
fine previously - it's because of exactly the above.

> But drivers could also have their CPU port working simply because those
> are internal to an SoC and don't need any software configuration to pass
> traffic. In their case, there is no breakage caused by the phylink_pcs
> conversion, but breakage caused by sudden registration of phylink is
> plausible, if phylink doesn't get the link parameters right.
> 
> And that breakage is preventable. Gradually more drivers could be
> converted to create a fixed-link software node by printing a warning
> that they should, and still keep the logic to avoid phylink registration
> and putting the respective port down. Driver authors might not be very
> responsive to RFC patch sets, but they do look at new warnings in dmesg
> and try to see what they're about.

Are you going to do that conversion then? Good luck trying to find all
the drivers, sending out series of patches, trying to get people to test
the changes.

> What I'm missing is the proof that the phylink_pcs conversion has broken
> those kinds of switches, and that it's therefore pointless to keep the
> existing logic for them. Sorry, but you didn't provide it.

I don't have evidence that existing drivers have broken because I don't
have the hardware to test. I only have Marvell DSA switch hardware and
that is it.

Everything else has to be based on theory because no one bothers to
respond to my patches, so for 99% of the DSA drivers I'm working in the
dark - and that makes development an utter shitpile of poo in hell.

As I've said many times, we have NO CLUE which DSA drivers make use of
this defaulting behaviour - the only one I'm aware of that does is
mv88e6xxx. It all depends on the firmware description, driver behaviour
and hardware behaviour. There is not enough information in the kernel 
to be able to derive this.

If there was a reported regression, then I would be looking to get this
into the NET tree not the NET-NEXT tree.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 03:36:08PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:13:55PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > and is exactly what I'm trying to get rid of, so we have _consistency_
> > > > in the implementation, to prevent fuckups like I've created by
> > > > converting many DSA drivers to use phylink_pcs. Any DSA driver that
> > > > used a PCS for the DSA or CPu port and has been converted to
> > > > phylink_pcs support has been broken in the last few kernel cycles. I'm
> > > > trying to address that breakage before converting the Marvell DSA
> > > > driver - which is the driver that highlighted the problem.
> > > 
> > > You are essentially saying that it's of no use to keep in DSA the
> > > fallback logic of not registering with phylink, because the phylink_pcs
> > > conversions have broken the defaulting functionality already in all
> > > other drivers.
> > 
> > Correct, and I don't want these exceptions precisely because it creates
> > stupid mistakes like the one I've highlighted. If we have one way of
> > doing something, then development becomes much easier. When we have
> > multiple different ways, mistakes happen, stuff breaks.
> 
> Agree that when we have multiple different ways, mistakes happen and
> stuff breaks. This is also why I want to avoid the proliferation of the
> default_interface reporting when most of the drivers were just fine
> without it. It needs to be opt-in, and checking for the presence of a
> dedicated function is an easy way to check for that opt-in.
> 
> > > I may have missed something, but this is new information to me.
> > > Specifically, before you've said that it is *this* patch set which would
> > > risk introducing breakage (by forcing a link down + a phylink creation).
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/YsCqFM8qM1h1MKu%2F@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> > > What you're saying now directly contradicts that.
> > 
> > No, it is not contradictory at all.
> > 
> > There is previous breakage caused by converting DSA drivers to
> > phylink_pcs - because the PCS code will *not* be called where a driver
> > makes use of the "default-to-fastest-speed" mechanism, so is likely
> > broken. Some drivers work around this by doing things manually.
> 
> Marvell conversion to phylink_pcs doesn't count as "previous" breakage
> if it's not in net-next.

Thank you for stating the obvious. I never claimed it was.

> > This series *also* risks breakage, because it means phylink gets used
> > in more situations which could confuse drivers - such as those which
> > have manually brought stuff up and are not expecting phylink to also
> > do it. Or those which do not fill in the mac_capabilities but do
> > default to this "fastest-speed" mechanism. Or some other unforseen
> > scenario.
> 
> I don't exactly understand the mechanics through which a phylink_pcs
> conversion would break a driver that used defaulting behavior,
> but I can only imagine it involves moving code that didn't depend on
> phylink, to phylink callbacks. It's hard to say whether that happened
> for any of the phylink_pcs conversions in net-next.

Situation before phylink_pcs conversion:
- code paths that configure the PCS are integrated with the rest of the
  driver and would be called where appropriate.

Situation after phylink_pcs conversion:
- code paths that configure the PCS are no longer integrated with the
  rest of the driver and are now dependent on phylink being used for
  them to be called.

If there is no problem with doing this conversion, then why has the
proposed conversion of mv88e6xxx caused breakage when it was working
fine previously - it's because of exactly the above.

> But drivers could also have their CPU port working simply because those
> are internal to an SoC and don't need any software configuration to pass
> traffic. In their case, there is no breakage caused by the phylink_pcs
> conversion, but breakage caused by sudden registration of phylink is
> plausible, if phylink doesn't get the link parameters right.
> 
> And that breakage is preventable. Gradually more drivers could be
> converted to create a fixed-link software node by printing a warning
> that they should, and still keep the logic to avoid phylink registration
> and putting the respective port down. Driver authors might not be very
> responsive to RFC patch sets, but they do look at new warnings in dmesg
> and try to see what they're about.

Are you going to do that conversion then? Good luck trying to find all
the drivers, sending out series of patches, trying to get people to test
the changes.

> What I'm missing is the proof that the phylink_pcs conversion has broken
> those kinds of switches, and that it's therefore pointless to keep the
> existing logic for them. Sorry, but you didn't provide it.

I don't have evidence that existing drivers have broken because I don't
have the hardware to test. I only have Marvell DSA switch hardware and
that is it.

Everything else has to be based on theory because no one bothers to
respond to my patches, so for 99% of the DSA drivers I'm working in the
dark - and that makes development an utter shitpile of poo in hell.

As I've said many times, we have NO CLUE which DSA drivers make use of
this defaulting behaviour - the only one I'm aware of that does is
mv88e6xxx. It all depends on the firmware description, driver behaviour
and hardware behaviour. There is not enough information in the kernel 
to be able to derive this.

If there was a reported regression, then I would be looking to get this
into the NET tree not the NET-NEXT tree.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 04:13:45PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:43:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > In the first RFC series I sent on the 24 June, I explicitly asked the
> > following questions:
> (...)
> > I even stated: "Please look at the patches and make suggestions on how
> > we can proceed to clean up this quirk of DSA." and made no mention of
> > wanting something explicitly from Andrew.
> > 
> > Yet, none of those questions were answered.
> > 
> > So no, Jakub's comments are *not* misdirected at all. Go back and read
> > my June 24th RFC series yourself:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/YrWi5oBFn7vR15BH@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> 
> I don't believe I need to justify myself any further for why I didn't
> leave a comment on any certain day. I left my comments when I believed
> it was most appropriate for me to intervene (as someone who isn't really
> affected in any way by the changes, except for generally maintaining
> what's in net/dsa/, and wanting to keep a clean framework structure).
> Also, to repeat myself, blaming me for leaving comments, but doing so
> late, is not really fair. I could have not responded at all, and I
> wouldn't be having this unpleasant discussion. It begs the question
> whether you're willing to be held accountable in the same way for the
> dates on which you respond on RFC patches.
> 
> > I've *tried* my best to be kind and collaborative, but I've been
> > ignored. Now I'm hacked off. This could have been avoided by responding
> > to my explicit questions sooner, rather than at the -rc6/-rc7 stage of
> > the show.
> 
> I think you should continue to try your best to be kind and collaborative,
> you weren't provoked or intentionally ignored in any way, and it isn't
> doing these patches any good.

And yet again, I don't have answers to many of those questions... which
just shows how broken this process is, and how utterly pointless it is
0to ask any questions in this area.

My conclusion: you don't care one bit to even answer questions until
there's a chance that patches that you disagree with might be merged,
and oh my god, you've got to respond to stop that happening because you
might disagree with something. You can't do the collaborative thing and
respond when someone asks explicit questions about how things should be
done.

I'm not going to let this go. I'm really pissed off by this and you
are the focus of my frustration.

Well, its now too late to do anything about this. This is going to miss
this cycle. It might get in next cycle, and whoopy do, for a kernel
that's very likely to be a LTS. Given the lack of testing that sounds
like a complete and utter disaster. One that was entirely avoidable had
feedback been given EARLIER in this cycle.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 04:13:45PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:43:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > In the first RFC series I sent on the 24 June, I explicitly asked the
> > following questions:
> (...)
> > I even stated: "Please look at the patches and make suggestions on how
> > we can proceed to clean up this quirk of DSA." and made no mention of
> > wanting something explicitly from Andrew.
> > 
> > Yet, none of those questions were answered.
> > 
> > So no, Jakub's comments are *not* misdirected at all. Go back and read
> > my June 24th RFC series yourself:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/YrWi5oBFn7vR15BH@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> 
> I don't believe I need to justify myself any further for why I didn't
> leave a comment on any certain day. I left my comments when I believed
> it was most appropriate for me to intervene (as someone who isn't really
> affected in any way by the changes, except for generally maintaining
> what's in net/dsa/, and wanting to keep a clean framework structure).
> Also, to repeat myself, blaming me for leaving comments, but doing so
> late, is not really fair. I could have not responded at all, and I
> wouldn't be having this unpleasant discussion. It begs the question
> whether you're willing to be held accountable in the same way for the
> dates on which you respond on RFC patches.
> 
> > I've *tried* my best to be kind and collaborative, but I've been
> > ignored. Now I'm hacked off. This could have been avoided by responding
> > to my explicit questions sooner, rather than at the -rc6/-rc7 stage of
> > the show.
> 
> I think you should continue to try your best to be kind and collaborative,
> you weren't provoked or intentionally ignored in any way, and it isn't
> doing these patches any good.

And yet again, I don't have answers to many of those questions... which
just shows how broken this process is, and how utterly pointless it is
0to ask any questions in this area.

My conclusion: you don't care one bit to even answer questions until
there's a chance that patches that you disagree with might be merged,
and oh my god, you've got to respond to stop that happening because you
might disagree with something. You can't do the collaborative thing and
respond when someone asks explicit questions about how things should be
done.

I'm not going to let this go. I'm really pissed off by this and you
are the focus of my frustration.

Well, its now too late to do anything about this. This is going to miss
this cycle. It might get in next cycle, and whoopy do, for a kernel
that's very likely to be a LTS. Given the lack of testing that sounds
like a complete and utter disaster. One that was entirely avoidable had
feedback been given EARLIER in this cycle.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:33:40PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:17:15PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:57:55PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > > > > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Allow a named software node to be created, which is needed for software
> > > > > nodes for a fixed-link specification for DSA.
> > > > 
> > > > In general I have no objection, but what's worrying me is a possibility to
> > > > collide in namespace. With the current code the name is generated based on
> > > > unique IDs, how can we make this one more robust?
> > > 
> > > Could you be more clear about the exact concern?
> > 
> > Each software node can be created with a name. The hierarchy should be unique,
> > means that there can't be two or more nodes with the same path (like on file
> > system or more specifically here, Device Tree). Allowing to pass names we may
> > end up with the situation when it will be a path collision. Yet, the static
> > names are easier to check, because one may run `git grep ...` or coccinelle
> > script to see what's in the kernel.
> 
> So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> determine whether it'll fail?
> 
> Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.

I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:33:40PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:17:15PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:57:55PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:32PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > > > > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Allow a named software node to be created, which is needed for software
> > > > > nodes for a fixed-link specification for DSA.
> > > > 
> > > > In general I have no objection, but what's worrying me is a possibility to
> > > > collide in namespace. With the current code the name is generated based on
> > > > unique IDs, how can we make this one more robust?
> > > 
> > > Could you be more clear about the exact concern?
> > 
> > Each software node can be created with a name. The hierarchy should be unique,
> > means that there can't be two or more nodes with the same path (like on file
> > system or more specifically here, Device Tree). Allowing to pass names we may
> > end up with the situation when it will be a path collision. Yet, the static
> > names are easier to check, because one may run `git grep ...` or coccinelle
> > script to see what's in the kernel.
> 
> So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> determine whether it'll fail?
> 
> Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.

I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:53:23AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 04:13:45PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:43:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > In the first RFC series I sent on the 24 June, I explicitly asked the
> > > following questions:
> > (...)
> > > I even stated: "Please look at the patches and make suggestions on how
> > > we can proceed to clean up this quirk of DSA." and made no mention of
> > > wanting something explicitly from Andrew.
> > > 
> > > Yet, none of those questions were answered.
> > > 
> > > So no, Jakub's comments are *not* misdirected at all. Go back and read
> > > my June 24th RFC series yourself:
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/YrWi5oBFn7vR15BH@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> > 
> > I don't believe I need to justify myself any further for why I didn't
> > leave a comment on any certain day. I left my comments when I believed
> > it was most appropriate for me to intervene (as someone who isn't really
> > affected in any way by the changes, except for generally maintaining
> > what's in net/dsa/, and wanting to keep a clean framework structure).
> > Also, to repeat myself, blaming me for leaving comments, but doing so
> > late, is not really fair. I could have not responded at all, and I
> > wouldn't be having this unpleasant discussion. It begs the question
> > whether you're willing to be held accountable in the same way for the
> > dates on which you respond on RFC patches.
> > 
> > > I've *tried* my best to be kind and collaborative, but I've been
> > > ignored. Now I'm hacked off. This could have been avoided by responding
> > > to my explicit questions sooner, rather than at the -rc6/-rc7 stage of
> > > the show.
> > 
> > I think you should continue to try your best to be kind and collaborative,
> > you weren't provoked or intentionally ignored in any way, and it isn't
> > doing these patches any good.
> 
> And yet again, I don't have answers to many of those questions... which
> just shows how broken this process is, and how utterly pointless it is
> 0to ask any questions in this area.
> 
> My conclusion: you don't care one bit to even answer questions until
> there's a chance that patches that you disagree with might be merged,
> and oh my god, you've got to respond to stop that happening because you
> might disagree with something. You can't do the collaborative thing and
> respond when someone asks explicit questions about how things should be
> done.
> 
> I'm not going to let this go. I'm really pissed off by this and you
> are the focus of my frustration.

The hypothesis that you put forward is that I'm sabotaging you by not
responding to RFCs, then leaving comments when you submit the patches
proper, just so that they're delayed because I don't agree with them;
and that the process is broken because it allows me to do just that and
get away with it (for fun, I assume?).

So first off, you sent the first RFC towards 2 people in To:, and 19
people in Cc:. I was one of the people in Cc. You didn't ask *me* any
explicit question. In fact, when you did, I responded within 5 hours:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220707154303.236xaeape7isracw@skbuf/

Then, why did I not respond earlier to questions I had an opinion on?

Based on prior experience, anything I reply to you has a chance of
inflaming you for reasons that are outside of my control, and the
discussion derails and eventually ends with you saying that I'm being
difficult and you're quitting for the day, week, month, kernel release
cycle or what not. I'm not saying that's my fault or your fault in
general, it's just a statistical observation based on past interactions,
and it looks like this one is no different.

With regard to this topic, there was ample opportunity for the patch set
to come to a resolve without my intervention, and I decided that the
best way to maximize the chances of this discussion not going sideways
is to not say anything at all, especially when I don't need to.
Gradually, the opportunity for the patch set to resolve itself without
my intervention diminished, and I started offering my feedback to the code.

It's perhaps necessary of me to not let this phrase of yours unaddressed,
because it is subtly part of your argument that I'm just trying to delay
your patches as part of a sabotage plot:

| The only thing that delayed them was your eventual comments about
| re-working how it was being done.

Let's not forget that I did *not* request you to rework the implementation
to use software nodes. I simply went with the code you originally proposed,
explained why it is unnaturally structured in my view, asked you why you
did not consider an alternative structure if you're not willing to make
phylink absorb the logic, then you said you'd be happy to rework using
software nodes.
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220707193753.2j67ni3or3bfkt6k@skbuf/

My feedback was very actionable, I put forward a working prototype for
using software nodes that did consume time for me to write, I was not
being handwavy in any way. More importantly, you agreed with it and are
using it now. And all of that happened during RFC stages. To ignore
these facts when you state that I respond only to non-RFC patches is a
lie by omission. I give feedback to code in the order of importance.
Now was the time to point out that (a) I don't want to add support for
the defaulting mode on CPU ports for drivers that didn't have it
previously, and (b) I'd like to keep the current implementation of the
defaulting feature as "don't register with phylink" as the default, with
just an opt-in to create the software node. Drivers can opt into that
behavior as need shows (breakage reports). Again, this is all extremely
actionable feedback, and rather minor in the grand scheme of things.


So I'm sorry, but your frustration expressed towards me for ignoring RFC
patches *is* misdirected and there's nothing I will consider changing.
If the discussion derailed now due to me it doesn't mean it wouldn't
have derailed earlier. There are still many people who could have said
more things than they did, and yet, I'm not even blaming them for not
doing that. There is a chapter in a book by Robert Cialdini called
"Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" which discusses social proof,
the mechanism through which people tend to do what others do when
otherwise unsure. I'm paraphrasing, but there is a paragraph discussing
what can be done when social proof works against you, for example you're
being attacked on the street, you ask for help and nobody appears to do
anything except for passing by. Summarized, you should ask for very
specific things, point to people, say names, rather than get frustrated
that the crowd does nothing.

> Well, its now too late to do anything about this. This is going to miss
> this cycle. It might get in next cycle, and whoopy do, for a kernel
> that's very likely to be a LTS. Given the lack of testing that sounds
> like a complete and utter disaster. One that was entirely avoidable had
> feedback been given EARLIER in this cycle.

If your patch set was a silver bullet to avoid breakage, that would have
maybe changed things a little, but it isn't. For any driver that might
boot using a DT blob with the defaulting feature for the CPU port, there
is a gamble to be taken whether the better thing to do is to unleash phylink
at it unattended or to let it be. Obviously having a driver maintainer
assist phylink would be the correct thing, but until the board in question
reaches a maintainer, chances are it will probably reach a user.

What I'm trying to obtain in terms of changes is that the user can at
least correlate the breakage he's seeing with a dmesg warning message
that clearly indicates what phylink or DSA tried to do in lack of clear
DT description.

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:53:23AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 04:13:45PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:43:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > In the first RFC series I sent on the 24 June, I explicitly asked the
> > > following questions:
> > (...)
> > > I even stated: "Please look at the patches and make suggestions on how
> > > we can proceed to clean up this quirk of DSA." and made no mention of
> > > wanting something explicitly from Andrew.
> > > 
> > > Yet, none of those questions were answered.
> > > 
> > > So no, Jakub's comments are *not* misdirected at all. Go back and read
> > > my June 24th RFC series yourself:
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/YrWi5oBFn7vR15BH@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> > 
> > I don't believe I need to justify myself any further for why I didn't
> > leave a comment on any certain day. I left my comments when I believed
> > it was most appropriate for me to intervene (as someone who isn't really
> > affected in any way by the changes, except for generally maintaining
> > what's in net/dsa/, and wanting to keep a clean framework structure).
> > Also, to repeat myself, blaming me for leaving comments, but doing so
> > late, is not really fair. I could have not responded at all, and I
> > wouldn't be having this unpleasant discussion. It begs the question
> > whether you're willing to be held accountable in the same way for the
> > dates on which you respond on RFC patches.
> > 
> > > I've *tried* my best to be kind and collaborative, but I've been
> > > ignored. Now I'm hacked off. This could have been avoided by responding
> > > to my explicit questions sooner, rather than at the -rc6/-rc7 stage of
> > > the show.
> > 
> > I think you should continue to try your best to be kind and collaborative,
> > you weren't provoked or intentionally ignored in any way, and it isn't
> > doing these patches any good.
> 
> And yet again, I don't have answers to many of those questions... which
> just shows how broken this process is, and how utterly pointless it is
> 0to ask any questions in this area.
> 
> My conclusion: you don't care one bit to even answer questions until
> there's a chance that patches that you disagree with might be merged,
> and oh my god, you've got to respond to stop that happening because you
> might disagree with something. You can't do the collaborative thing and
> respond when someone asks explicit questions about how things should be
> done.
> 
> I'm not going to let this go. I'm really pissed off by this and you
> are the focus of my frustration.

The hypothesis that you put forward is that I'm sabotaging you by not
responding to RFCs, then leaving comments when you submit the patches
proper, just so that they're delayed because I don't agree with them;
and that the process is broken because it allows me to do just that and
get away with it (for fun, I assume?).

So first off, you sent the first RFC towards 2 people in To:, and 19
people in Cc:. I was one of the people in Cc. You didn't ask *me* any
explicit question. In fact, when you did, I responded within 5 hours:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220707154303.236xaeape7isracw@skbuf/

Then, why did I not respond earlier to questions I had an opinion on?

Based on prior experience, anything I reply to you has a chance of
inflaming you for reasons that are outside of my control, and the
discussion derails and eventually ends with you saying that I'm being
difficult and you're quitting for the day, week, month, kernel release
cycle or what not. I'm not saying that's my fault or your fault in
general, it's just a statistical observation based on past interactions,
and it looks like this one is no different.

With regard to this topic, there was ample opportunity for the patch set
to come to a resolve without my intervention, and I decided that the
best way to maximize the chances of this discussion not going sideways
is to not say anything at all, especially when I don't need to.
Gradually, the opportunity for the patch set to resolve itself without
my intervention diminished, and I started offering my feedback to the code.

It's perhaps necessary of me to not let this phrase of yours unaddressed,
because it is subtly part of your argument that I'm just trying to delay
your patches as part of a sabotage plot:

| The only thing that delayed them was your eventual comments about
| re-working how it was being done.

Let's not forget that I did *not* request you to rework the implementation
to use software nodes. I simply went with the code you originally proposed,
explained why it is unnaturally structured in my view, asked you why you
did not consider an alternative structure if you're not willing to make
phylink absorb the logic, then you said you'd be happy to rework using
software nodes.
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220707193753.2j67ni3or3bfkt6k@skbuf/

My feedback was very actionable, I put forward a working prototype for
using software nodes that did consume time for me to write, I was not
being handwavy in any way. More importantly, you agreed with it and are
using it now. And all of that happened during RFC stages. To ignore
these facts when you state that I respond only to non-RFC patches is a
lie by omission. I give feedback to code in the order of importance.
Now was the time to point out that (a) I don't want to add support for
the defaulting mode on CPU ports for drivers that didn't have it
previously, and (b) I'd like to keep the current implementation of the
defaulting feature as "don't register with phylink" as the default, with
just an opt-in to create the software node. Drivers can opt into that
behavior as need shows (breakage reports). Again, this is all extremely
actionable feedback, and rather minor in the grand scheme of things.


So I'm sorry, but your frustration expressed towards me for ignoring RFC
patches *is* misdirected and there's nothing I will consider changing.
If the discussion derailed now due to me it doesn't mean it wouldn't
have derailed earlier. There are still many people who could have said
more things than they did, and yet, I'm not even blaming them for not
doing that. There is a chapter in a book by Robert Cialdini called
"Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" which discusses social proof,
the mechanism through which people tend to do what others do when
otherwise unsure. I'm paraphrasing, but there is a paragraph discussing
what can be done when social proof works against you, for example you're
being attacked on the street, you ask for help and nobody appears to do
anything except for passing by. Summarized, you should ask for very
specific things, point to people, say names, rather than get frustrated
that the crowd does nothing.

> Well, its now too late to do anything about this. This is going to miss
> this cycle. It might get in next cycle, and whoopy do, for a kernel
> that's very likely to be a LTS. Given the lack of testing that sounds
> like a complete and utter disaster. One that was entirely avoidable had
> feedback been given EARLIER in this cycle.

If your patch set was a silver bullet to avoid breakage, that would have
maybe changed things a little, but it isn't. For any driver that might
boot using a DT blob with the defaulting feature for the CPU port, there
is a gamble to be taken whether the better thing to do is to unleash phylink
at it unattended or to let it be. Obviously having a driver maintainer
assist phylink would be the correct thing, but until the board in question
reaches a maintainer, chances are it will probably reach a user.

What I'm trying to obtain in terms of changes is that the user can at
least correlate the breakage he's seeing with a dmesg warning message
that clearly indicates what phylink or DSA tried to do in lack of clear
DT description.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:45:12PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:53:23AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 04:13:45PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:43:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > In the first RFC series I sent on the 24 June, I explicitly asked the
> > > > following questions:
> > > (...)
> > > > I even stated: "Please look at the patches and make suggestions on how
> > > > we can proceed to clean up this quirk of DSA." and made no mention of
> > > > wanting something explicitly from Andrew.
> > > > 
> > > > Yet, none of those questions were answered.
> > > > 
> > > > So no, Jakub's comments are *not* misdirected at all. Go back and read
> > > > my June 24th RFC series yourself:
> > > > 
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/YrWi5oBFn7vR15BH@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> > > 
> > > I don't believe I need to justify myself any further for why I didn't
> > > leave a comment on any certain day. I left my comments when I believed
> > > it was most appropriate for me to intervene (as someone who isn't really
> > > affected in any way by the changes, except for generally maintaining
> > > what's in net/dsa/, and wanting to keep a clean framework structure).
> > > Also, to repeat myself, blaming me for leaving comments, but doing so
> > > late, is not really fair. I could have not responded at all, and I
> > > wouldn't be having this unpleasant discussion. It begs the question
> > > whether you're willing to be held accountable in the same way for the
> > > dates on which you respond on RFC patches.
> > > 
> > > > I've *tried* my best to be kind and collaborative, but I've been
> > > > ignored. Now I'm hacked off. This could have been avoided by responding
> > > > to my explicit questions sooner, rather than at the -rc6/-rc7 stage of
> > > > the show.
> > > 
> > > I think you should continue to try your best to be kind and collaborative,
> > > you weren't provoked or intentionally ignored in any way, and it isn't
> > > doing these patches any good.
> > 
> > And yet again, I don't have answers to many of those questions... which
> > just shows how broken this process is, and how utterly pointless it is
> > 0to ask any questions in this area.
> > 
> > My conclusion: you don't care one bit to even answer questions until
> > there's a chance that patches that you disagree with might be merged,
> > and oh my god, you've got to respond to stop that happening because you
> > might disagree with something. You can't do the collaborative thing and
> > respond when someone asks explicit questions about how things should be
> > done.
> > 
> > I'm not going to let this go. I'm really pissed off by this and you
> > are the focus of my frustration.
> 
> The hypothesis that you put forward is that I'm sabotaging you by not
> responding to RFCs, then leaving comments when you submit the patches
> proper, just so that they're delayed because I don't agree with them;
> and that the process is broken because it allows me to do just that and
> get away with it (for fun, I assume?).
> 
> So first off, you sent the first RFC towards 2 people in To:, and 19
> people in Cc:. I was one of the people in Cc. You didn't ask *me* any
> explicit question. In fact, when you did, I responded within 5 hours:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220707154303.236xaeape7isracw@skbuf/
> 
> Then, why did I not respond earlier to questions I had an opinion on?

In the second RFC, I stated:

"Some of the questions from the original RFC remain though, so I've
included that text below. I'm guessing as they remain unanswered that
no one has any opinions on them?"

Clearly, I was soliciting answers from _everyone_ who received this,
not just the two people in the To: header.

> Based on prior experience, anything I reply to you has a chance of
> inflaming you for reasons that are outside of my control, and the
> discussion derails and eventually ends with you saying that I'm being
> difficult and you're quitting for the day, week, month, kernel release
> cycle or what not. I'm not saying that's my fault or your fault in
> general, it's just a statistical observation based on past interactions,
> and it looks like this one is no different.
> 
> With regard to this topic, there was ample opportunity for the patch set
> to come to a resolve without my intervention, and I decided that the
> best way to maximize the chances of this discussion not going sideways
> is to not say anything at all, especially when I don't need to.
> Gradually, the opportunity for the patch set to resolve itself without
> my intervention diminished, and I started offering my feedback to the code.
> 
> It's perhaps necessary of me to not let this phrase of yours unaddressed,
> because it is subtly part of your argument that I'm just trying to delay
> your patches as part of a sabotage plot:
> 
> | The only thing that delayed them was your eventual comments about
> | re-working how it was being done.
> 
> Let's not forget that I did *not* request you to rework the implementation
> to use software nodes. I simply went with the code you originally proposed,
> explained why it is unnaturally structured in my view, asked you why you
> did not consider an alternative structure if you're not willing to make
> phylink absorb the logic, then you said you'd be happy to rework using
> software nodes.
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220707193753.2j67ni3or3bfkt6k@skbuf/

This is _not_ the issue I'm raising. I am complaining about the
"default_interface" issue that you've only piped up about, despite
(a) an explicit question having been asked about that approach, (b) it
appearing in not just one, not two, not three but four RFC series sent,
and only finally being raised when a non-RFC series was sent.

This whole debarcle could have been avoided with providing feedback at
an earlier stage, when I explicitly requested it _several_ times.

I will not be doing any further work on this - this can wait a few
kernel cycles, because quite honestly, I'm not going to try to submit
this for next cycle.

And I quite expect a repeat of this shit, with me struggling to get
comments on patches, being mostly ignored and then for comments to come
at the last minute when there's no reasonable time left in the cycle to
action them.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:45:12PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:53:23AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 04:13:45PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:43:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > In the first RFC series I sent on the 24 June, I explicitly asked the
> > > > following questions:
> > > (...)
> > > > I even stated: "Please look at the patches and make suggestions on how
> > > > we can proceed to clean up this quirk of DSA." and made no mention of
> > > > wanting something explicitly from Andrew.
> > > > 
> > > > Yet, none of those questions were answered.
> > > > 
> > > > So no, Jakub's comments are *not* misdirected at all. Go back and read
> > > > my June 24th RFC series yourself:
> > > > 
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/YrWi5oBFn7vR15BH@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> > > 
> > > I don't believe I need to justify myself any further for why I didn't
> > > leave a comment on any certain day. I left my comments when I believed
> > > it was most appropriate for me to intervene (as someone who isn't really
> > > affected in any way by the changes, except for generally maintaining
> > > what's in net/dsa/, and wanting to keep a clean framework structure).
> > > Also, to repeat myself, blaming me for leaving comments, but doing so
> > > late, is not really fair. I could have not responded at all, and I
> > > wouldn't be having this unpleasant discussion. It begs the question
> > > whether you're willing to be held accountable in the same way for the
> > > dates on which you respond on RFC patches.
> > > 
> > > > I've *tried* my best to be kind and collaborative, but I've been
> > > > ignored. Now I'm hacked off. This could have been avoided by responding
> > > > to my explicit questions sooner, rather than at the -rc6/-rc7 stage of
> > > > the show.
> > > 
> > > I think you should continue to try your best to be kind and collaborative,
> > > you weren't provoked or intentionally ignored in any way, and it isn't
> > > doing these patches any good.
> > 
> > And yet again, I don't have answers to many of those questions... which
> > just shows how broken this process is, and how utterly pointless it is
> > 0to ask any questions in this area.
> > 
> > My conclusion: you don't care one bit to even answer questions until
> > there's a chance that patches that you disagree with might be merged,
> > and oh my god, you've got to respond to stop that happening because you
> > might disagree with something. You can't do the collaborative thing and
> > respond when someone asks explicit questions about how things should be
> > done.
> > 
> > I'm not going to let this go. I'm really pissed off by this and you
> > are the focus of my frustration.
> 
> The hypothesis that you put forward is that I'm sabotaging you by not
> responding to RFCs, then leaving comments when you submit the patches
> proper, just so that they're delayed because I don't agree with them;
> and that the process is broken because it allows me to do just that and
> get away with it (for fun, I assume?).
> 
> So first off, you sent the first RFC towards 2 people in To:, and 19
> people in Cc:. I was one of the people in Cc. You didn't ask *me* any
> explicit question. In fact, when you did, I responded within 5 hours:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220707154303.236xaeape7isracw@skbuf/
> 
> Then, why did I not respond earlier to questions I had an opinion on?

In the second RFC, I stated:

"Some of the questions from the original RFC remain though, so I've
included that text below. I'm guessing as they remain unanswered that
no one has any opinions on them?"

Clearly, I was soliciting answers from _everyone_ who received this,
not just the two people in the To: header.

> Based on prior experience, anything I reply to you has a chance of
> inflaming you for reasons that are outside of my control, and the
> discussion derails and eventually ends with you saying that I'm being
> difficult and you're quitting for the day, week, month, kernel release
> cycle or what not. I'm not saying that's my fault or your fault in
> general, it's just a statistical observation based on past interactions,
> and it looks like this one is no different.
> 
> With regard to this topic, there was ample opportunity for the patch set
> to come to a resolve without my intervention, and I decided that the
> best way to maximize the chances of this discussion not going sideways
> is to not say anything at all, especially when I don't need to.
> Gradually, the opportunity for the patch set to resolve itself without
> my intervention diminished, and I started offering my feedback to the code.
> 
> It's perhaps necessary of me to not let this phrase of yours unaddressed,
> because it is subtly part of your argument that I'm just trying to delay
> your patches as part of a sabotage plot:
> 
> | The only thing that delayed them was your eventual comments about
> | re-working how it was being done.
> 
> Let's not forget that I did *not* request you to rework the implementation
> to use software nodes. I simply went with the code you originally proposed,
> explained why it is unnaturally structured in my view, asked you why you
> did not consider an alternative structure if you're not willing to make
> phylink absorb the logic, then you said you'd be happy to rework using
> software nodes.
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220707193753.2j67ni3or3bfkt6k@skbuf/

This is _not_ the issue I'm raising. I am complaining about the
"default_interface" issue that you've only piped up about, despite
(a) an explicit question having been asked about that approach, (b) it
appearing in not just one, not two, not three but four RFC series sent,
and only finally being raised when a non-RFC series was sent.

This whole debarcle could have been avoided with providing feedback at
an earlier stage, when I explicitly requested it _several_ times.

I will not be doing any further work on this - this can wait a few
kernel cycles, because quite honestly, I'm not going to try to submit
this for next cycle.

And I quite expect a repeat of this shit, with me struggling to get
comments on patches, being mostly ignored and then for comments to come
at the last minute when there's no reasonable time left in the cycle to
action them.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > determine whether it'll fail?
> > 
> > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.
> 
> I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.

Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
runtime?

The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
this binding.

There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)

So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
some better way to achieve what we need here?

Thanks.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > determine whether it'll fail?
> > 
> > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.
> 
> I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.

Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
runtime?

The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
this binding.

There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)

So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
some better way to achieve what we need here?

Thanks.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:02:33PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> In the second RFC, I stated:
> 
> "Some of the questions from the original RFC remain though, so I've
> included that text below. I'm guessing as they remain unanswered that
> no one has any opinions on them?"
> 
> Clearly, I was soliciting answers from _everyone_ who received this,
> not just the two people in the To: header.
(...)
> This is _not_ the issue I'm raising. I am complaining about the
> "default_interface" issue that you've only piped up about, despite
> (a) an explicit question having been asked about that approach, (b) it
> appearing in not just one, not two, not three but four RFC series sent,
> and only finally being raised when a non-RFC series was sent.
> 
> This whole debarcle could have been avoided with providing feedback at
> an earlier stage, when I explicitly requested it _several_ times.

Please stop shoving quotes of your questions in my face, I'm still glad
I deleted my draft responses to them when they were originally asked,
because *when* (not *if*) things will have went sideways, I would have
blamed myself for people wanting to test/respond but not having whom to
talk to, because you rage quit.

You need to understand that a voluntary reviewer doesn't have a duty to
respond to you on any certain date, and that I'm not obliged to shut up
about where to place "default_interface" because I haven't said anything
about it in the first N series. I was on the fence whether it was even
worth saying anything about it at all, and the only reason I decided to
do it was because the patch to change every DSA driver's phylink_get_caps()
prototype now conflicts with concurrent changes done to drivers, and
doesn't apply to net-next anyway:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/E1oCNl3-006e3n-PT@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk/
So I really can't be reasonably accused of wanting to stall this series.

You have no reason whatsoever to pick a fight with me, so please stop it.

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:02:33PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> In the second RFC, I stated:
> 
> "Some of the questions from the original RFC remain though, so I've
> included that text below. I'm guessing as they remain unanswered that
> no one has any opinions on them?"
> 
> Clearly, I was soliciting answers from _everyone_ who received this,
> not just the two people in the To: header.
(...)
> This is _not_ the issue I'm raising. I am complaining about the
> "default_interface" issue that you've only piped up about, despite
> (a) an explicit question having been asked about that approach, (b) it
> appearing in not just one, not two, not three but four RFC series sent,
> and only finally being raised when a non-RFC series was sent.
> 
> This whole debarcle could have been avoided with providing feedback at
> an earlier stage, when I explicitly requested it _several_ times.

Please stop shoving quotes of your questions in my face, I'm still glad
I deleted my draft responses to them when they were originally asked,
because *when* (not *if*) things will have went sideways, I would have
blamed myself for people wanting to test/respond but not having whom to
talk to, because you rage quit.

You need to understand that a voluntary reviewer doesn't have a duty to
respond to you on any certain date, and that I'm not obliged to shut up
about where to place "default_interface" because I haven't said anything
about it in the first N series. I was on the fence whether it was even
worth saying anything about it at all, and the only reason I decided to
do it was because the patch to change every DSA driver's phylink_get_caps()
prototype now conflicts with concurrent changes done to drivers, and
doesn't apply to net-next anyway:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/E1oCNl3-006e3n-PT@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk/
So I really can't be reasonably accused of wanting to stall this series.

You have no reason whatsoever to pick a fight with me, so please stop it.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > 
> > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.
> > 
> > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.
> 
> Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> runtime?

For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.

When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.

> The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> this binding.

And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?

For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.

> There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> 
> So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> some better way to achieve what we need here?

Honestly, I don't know.

The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
and make fixed-link as a child of it.

Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.

Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...

Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
(firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.

How graphs are used with swnodes, you may look into IPU3 (Intel Camera)
glue driver to support devices before MIPI standardisation of the
respective properties.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > 
> > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.
> > 
> > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.
> 
> Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> runtime?

For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.

When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.

> The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> this binding.

And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?

For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.

> There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> 
> So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> some better way to achieve what we need here?

Honestly, I don't know.

The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
and make fixed-link as a child of it.

Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.

Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...

Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
(firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.

How graphs are used with swnodes, you may look into IPU3 (Intel Camera)
glue driver to support devices before MIPI standardisation of the
respective properties.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.
> > > 
> > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.
> > 
> > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > runtime?
> 
> For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> 
> When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> 
> > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > this binding.
> 
> And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> 
> For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.
> 
> > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > 
> > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > some better way to achieve what we need here?
> 
> Honestly, I don't know.
> 
> The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> 
> Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> 
> Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> 
> Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> 
> How graphs are used with swnodes, you may look into IPU3 (Intel Camera)
> glue driver to support devices before MIPI standardisation of the
> respective properties.

Forgot to say (yes, it maybe obvious) that this API will be exported,
anyone can use it and trap into the similar issue, because, for example,
of testing in environment with a single instance of the caller.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.
> > > 
> > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.
> > 
> > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > runtime?
> 
> For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> 
> When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> 
> > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > this binding.
> 
> And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> 
> For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.
> 
> > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > 
> > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > some better way to achieve what we need here?
> 
> Honestly, I don't know.
> 
> The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> 
> Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> 
> Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> 
> Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> 
> How graphs are used with swnodes, you may look into IPU3 (Intel Camera)
> glue driver to support devices before MIPI standardisation of the
> respective properties.

Forgot to say (yes, it maybe obvious) that this API will be exported,
anyone can use it and trap into the similar issue, because, for example,
of testing in environment with a single instance of the caller.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] net: dsa: use swnode fixed-link if using default params

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:36:29PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:11:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:48PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

...

> > > Co-developed by Vladimir Oltean and myself.
> > 
> > Why not to use
> > 
> >   Co-developed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> 
> Ah, that's an official thing. Thanks.

Yep, it's even documented in Submitting Patches.

...

> > > +	phy_node = of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy-handle", 0);
> > 
> > fwnode in the name, why not to use fwnode APIs?
> > 
> > 	fwnode_find_reference();
> 
> Marcin has a series converting DSA to use fwnode things - currently DSA
> does not support ACPI, so converting it to fwnode doesn't make that much
> sese until the proper ACPI patches get merged, which have now been
> rebased on this series by Marcin in the expectation that these patches
> would be merged... so I don't want to tred on Marcin's feet on that.

But it's normal development process...

Anyway, it seems to me that you are using fwnode out of that (with the
exception of one call). To me it looks that you add a work to him, rather
than making his life easier, since you know ahead that this is going to be
converted.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] net: dsa: use swnode fixed-link if using default params

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:36:29PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:11:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:48PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

...

> > > Co-developed by Vladimir Oltean and myself.
> > 
> > Why not to use
> > 
> >   Co-developed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> 
> Ah, that's an official thing. Thanks.

Yep, it's even documented in Submitting Patches.

...

> > > +	phy_node = of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy-handle", 0);
> > 
> > fwnode in the name, why not to use fwnode APIs?
> > 
> > 	fwnode_find_reference();
> 
> Marcin has a series converting DSA to use fwnode things - currently DSA
> does not support ACPI, so converting it to fwnode doesn't make that much
> sese until the proper ACPI patches get merged, which have now been
> rebased on this series by Marcin in the expectation that these patches
> would be merged... so I don't want to tred on Marcin's feet on that.

But it's normal development process...

Anyway, it seems to me that you are using fwnode out of that (with the
exception of one call). To me it looks that you add a work to him, rather
than making his life easier, since you know ahead that this is going to be
converted.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:41PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.
> > > 
> > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.
> > 
> > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > runtime?
> 
> For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> 
> When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> 
> > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > this binding.
> 
> And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> 
> For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.

Good point - I guess we at least need to attach the swnode parent to the
device so its path is unique, because right now that isn't the case. I'm
guessing that:

        new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);

will create something at the root of the swnode tree, and then:

        fixed_link_fwnode = fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
                                                              new_port_fwnode,
                                                              "fixed-link");

will create a node with a fixed name. I guess it in part depends what
pathname the first node gets (which we don't specify.) I'm not familiar
with the swnode code to know what happens with the naming for the first
node.

However, it seems sensible to me to attach the first node to the device
node, thus giving it a unique fwnode path. Does that solve the problem
in swnode land?

> > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > 
> > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > some better way to achieve what we need here?
> 
> Honestly, I don't know.
> 
> The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> 
> Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> 
> Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> 
> Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.

That's a question for Andrew, but I've tried to solicit his comments on
several occasions concerning this "feature" of DSA but I keep getting
no reply. Honestly, I don't know the answer to your question.

The only thing that I know is that Andrew has been promoting this
feature where a switch port, whether it be connected to the CPU or
to another switch, which doesn't specify any link parameters will
automatically use the fastest "phy interface mode" and the fastest
link speed that can be supported by the DSA device.

This has caused issues over the last few years which we've bodged
around in various ways, and with updates to one of the DSA drivers
this bodging is becoming more of a wart that's spreading. So, I'm
trying to find a way to solve this.

My initial approach was to avoid fiddling with the firmware tree,
but Vladimir proposed this approach as being cleaner - and it means
the "bodge" becomes completely localised in the DSA (distributed
switch architecture) code rather than being spread into phylink.

I wish we could get rid of this "feature" but since it's been
established for many years, and we have at least one known driver
that uses it, getting rid of it breaks existing firmware trees.
I think we also have one other driver that makes use of it as
well, but I can't say for certain (because it's not really possible
to discern which drivers use this feature from reading the driver
code.) I've tried asking Andrew if he knows and got no response.

So I'm in a complete information vacuum here - all that I know is
that trying to convert the mv88e6xxx DSA driver to use phylink_pcs
will break it (as reported by Marek Behún), because phylink doesn't
get used if firmware is using this "defaulting" feature.

It's part of the DT binding, and remains so today - the properties
specifying the "phy-mode", "fixed-link" etc all remain optional.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:41PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.
> > > 
> > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.
> > 
> > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > runtime?
> 
> For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> 
> When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> 
> > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > this binding.
> 
> And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> 
> For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.

Good point - I guess we at least need to attach the swnode parent to the
device so its path is unique, because right now that isn't the case. I'm
guessing that:

        new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);

will create something at the root of the swnode tree, and then:

        fixed_link_fwnode = fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
                                                              new_port_fwnode,
                                                              "fixed-link");

will create a node with a fixed name. I guess it in part depends what
pathname the first node gets (which we don't specify.) I'm not familiar
with the swnode code to know what happens with the naming for the first
node.

However, it seems sensible to me to attach the first node to the device
node, thus giving it a unique fwnode path. Does that solve the problem
in swnode land?

> > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > 
> > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > some better way to achieve what we need here?
> 
> Honestly, I don't know.
> 
> The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> 
> Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> 
> Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> 
> Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.

That's a question for Andrew, but I've tried to solicit his comments on
several occasions concerning this "feature" of DSA but I keep getting
no reply. Honestly, I don't know the answer to your question.

The only thing that I know is that Andrew has been promoting this
feature where a switch port, whether it be connected to the CPU or
to another switch, which doesn't specify any link parameters will
automatically use the fastest "phy interface mode" and the fastest
link speed that can be supported by the DSA device.

This has caused issues over the last few years which we've bodged
around in various ways, and with updates to one of the DSA drivers
this bodging is becoming more of a wart that's spreading. So, I'm
trying to find a way to solve this.

My initial approach was to avoid fiddling with the firmware tree,
but Vladimir proposed this approach as being cleaner - and it means
the "bodge" becomes completely localised in the DSA (distributed
switch architecture) code rather than being spread into phylink.

I wish we could get rid of this "feature" but since it's been
established for many years, and we have at least one known driver
that uses it, getting rid of it breaks existing firmware trees.
I think we also have one other driver that makes use of it as
well, but I can't say for certain (because it's not really possible
to discern which drivers use this feature from reading the driver
code.) I've tried asking Andrew if he knows and got no response.

So I'm in a complete information vacuum here - all that I know is
that trying to convert the mv88e6xxx DSA driver to use phylink_pcs
will break it (as reported by Marek Behún), because phylink doesn't
get used if firmware is using this "defaulting" feature.

It's part of the DT binding, and remains so today - the properties
specifying the "phy-mode", "fixed-link" etc all remain optional.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] net: dsa: use swnode fixed-link if using default params

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:59:25PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:36:29PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:11:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:48PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > Co-developed by Vladimir Oltean and myself.
> > > 
> > > Why not to use
> > > 
> > >   Co-developed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > 
> > Ah, that's an official thing. Thanks.
> 
> Yep, it's even documented in Submitting Patches.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > +	phy_node = of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy-handle", 0);
> > > 
> > > fwnode in the name, why not to use fwnode APIs?
> > > 
> > > 	fwnode_find_reference();
> > 
> > Marcin has a series converting DSA to use fwnode things - currently DSA
> > does not support ACPI, so converting it to fwnode doesn't make that much
> > sese until the proper ACPI patches get merged, which have now been
> > rebased on this series by Marcin in the expectation that these patches
> > would be merged... so I don't want to tred on Marcin's feet on that.
> 
> But it's normal development process...
> 
> Anyway, it seems to me that you are using fwnode out of that (with the
> exception of one call). To me it looks that you add a work to him, rather
> than making his life easier, since you know ahead that this is going to be
> converted.

No, I didn't know ahead of time until Marcin piped up about it, and
then we discussed how to resolve the conflict between the two patch
sets.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] net: dsa: use swnode fixed-link if using default params

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:59:25PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:36:29PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:11:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:48PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > Co-developed by Vladimir Oltean and myself.
> > > 
> > > Why not to use
> > > 
> > >   Co-developed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > 
> > Ah, that's an official thing. Thanks.
> 
> Yep, it's even documented in Submitting Patches.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > +	phy_node = of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy-handle", 0);
> > > 
> > > fwnode in the name, why not to use fwnode APIs?
> > > 
> > > 	fwnode_find_reference();
> > 
> > Marcin has a series converting DSA to use fwnode things - currently DSA
> > does not support ACPI, so converting it to fwnode doesn't make that much
> > sese until the proper ACPI patches get merged, which have now been
> > rebased on this series by Marcin in the expectation that these patches
> > would be merged... so I don't want to tred on Marcin's feet on that.
> 
> But it's normal development process...
> 
> Anyway, it seems to me that you are using fwnode out of that (with the
> exception of one call). To me it looks that you add a work to him, rather
> than making his life easier, since you know ahead that this is going to be
> converted.

No, I didn't know ahead of time until Marcin piped up about it, and
then we discussed how to resolve the conflict between the two patch
sets.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:53:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.
> > > 
> > > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > > runtime?
> > 
> > For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> > Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> > names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> > 
> > When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> > collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> > but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> > 
> > > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > > this binding.
> > 
> > And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> > 
> > For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> > it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.
> > 
> > > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > > 
> > > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > > some better way to achieve what we need here?
> > 
> > Honestly, I don't know.
> > 
> > The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> > and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> > 
> > Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> > reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> > path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> > 
> > Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> > 
> > Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> > (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> > 
> > How graphs are used with swnodes, you may look into IPU3 (Intel Camera)
> > glue driver to support devices before MIPI standardisation of the
> > respective properties.
> 
> Forgot to say (yes, it maybe obvious) that this API will be exported,
> anyone can use it and trap into the similar issue, because, for example,
> of testing in environment with a single instance of the caller.

I think we're coming to the conclusion that using swnodes is not the
correct approach for this problem, correct?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:53:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.
> > > 
> > > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > > runtime?
> > 
> > For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> > Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> > names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> > 
> > When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> > collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> > but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> > 
> > > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > > this binding.
> > 
> > And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> > 
> > For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> > it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.
> > 
> > > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > > 
> > > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > > some better way to achieve what we need here?
> > 
> > Honestly, I don't know.
> > 
> > The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> > and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> > 
> > Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> > reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> > path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> > 
> > Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> > 
> > Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> > (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> > 
> > How graphs are used with swnodes, you may look into IPU3 (Intel Camera)
> > glue driver to support devices before MIPI standardisation of the
> > respective properties.
> 
> Forgot to say (yes, it maybe obvious) that this API will be exported,
> anyone can use it and trap into the similar issue, because, for example,
> of testing in environment with a single instance of the caller.

I think we're coming to the conclusion that using swnodes is not the
correct approach for this problem, correct?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:14:58PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:53:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.
> > > > 
> > > > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > > > runtime?
> > > 
> > > For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> > > Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> > > names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> > > 
> > > When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> > > collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> > > but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> > > 
> > > > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > > > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > > > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > > > this binding.
> > > 
> > > And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> > > 
> > > For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> > > it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.
> > > 
> > > > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > > > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > > > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > > > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > > > 
> > > > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > > > some better way to achieve what we need here?
> > > 
> > > Honestly, I don't know.
> > > 
> > > The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> > > and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> > > 
> > > Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> > > reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> > > path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> > > 
> > > Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> > > 
> > > Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> > > (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> > > 
> > > How graphs are used with swnodes, you may look into IPU3 (Intel Camera)
> > > glue driver to support devices before MIPI standardisation of the
> > > respective properties.
> > 
> > Forgot to say (yes, it maybe obvious) that this API will be exported,
> > anyone can use it and trap into the similar issue, because, for example,
> > of testing in environment with a single instance of the caller.
> 
> I think we're coming to the conclusion that using swnodes is not the
> correct approach for this problem, correct?

If I understand the possibilities of the usage in _this_ case, then it's
would be problematic (it does not mean it's incorrect). It might be due to
swnode design restrictions which shouldn't be made, I dunno. That' why
it's better to ask the others for their opinions.

By design swnode's name makes not much sense, because the payload there
is a property set, where _name_ is a must.

Now, telling you this, I'm questioning myself why the heck I added names
to swnodes in the intel_quark_i2c_gpio driver...

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:14:58PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:53:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.
> > > > 
> > > > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > > > runtime?
> > > 
> > > For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> > > Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> > > names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> > > 
> > > When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> > > collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> > > but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> > > 
> > > > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > > > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > > > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > > > this binding.
> > > 
> > > And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> > > 
> > > For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> > > it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.
> > > 
> > > > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > > > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > > > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > > > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > > > 
> > > > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > > > some better way to achieve what we need here?
> > > 
> > > Honestly, I don't know.
> > > 
> > > The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> > > and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> > > 
> > > Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> > > reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> > > path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> > > 
> > > Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> > > 
> > > Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> > > (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> > > 
> > > How graphs are used with swnodes, you may look into IPU3 (Intel Camera)
> > > glue driver to support devices before MIPI standardisation of the
> > > respective properties.
> > 
> > Forgot to say (yes, it maybe obvious) that this API will be exported,
> > anyone can use it and trap into the similar issue, because, for example,
> > of testing in environment with a single instance of the caller.
> 
> I think we're coming to the conclusion that using swnodes is not the
> correct approach for this problem, correct?

If I understand the possibilities of the usage in _this_ case, then it's
would be problematic (it does not mean it's incorrect). It might be due to
swnode design restrictions which shouldn't be made, I dunno. That' why
it's better to ask the others for their opinions.

By design swnode's name makes not much sense, because the payload there
is a property set, where _name_ is a must.

Now, telling you this, I'm questioning myself why the heck I added names
to swnodes in the intel_quark_i2c_gpio driver...

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:11:40PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:41PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.
> > > 
> > > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > > runtime?
> > 
> > For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> > Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> > names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> > 
> > When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> > collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> > but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> > 
> > > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > > this binding.
> > 
> > And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> > 
> > For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> > it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.
> 
> Good point - I guess we at least need to attach the swnode parent to the
> device so its path is unique, because right now that isn't the case. I'm
> guessing that:
> 
>         new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
> 
> will create something at the root of the swnode tree, and then:
> 
>         fixed_link_fwnode = fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
>                                                               new_port_fwnode,
>                                                               "fixed-link");
> 
> will create a node with a fixed name. I guess it in part depends what
> pathname the first node gets (which we don't specify.) I'm not familiar
> with the swnode code to know what happens with the naming for the first
> node.

First node's name will be unique which is guaranteed by IDA framework. If we
have already 2B nodes, then yes, it would be problematic (but 2^31 ought to be
enough :-).

> However, it seems sensible to me to attach the first node to the device
> node, thus giving it a unique fwnode path. Does that solve the problem
> in swnode land?

Yes, but in the driver you will have that as child of the device, analogue in DT

  my_root_node { // equal the level of device node you attach it to
	  fixed-link {
	  }
  }

(Sorry, I don't know the DT syntax by heart, but I hope you got the idea.)

To access it will be something like

  child = fwnode_get_named_child_node(fwnode, "fixed-link");

And reading properties, if needed,

  ret = fnode_property_read_...(child, ...);


But this might require to adopt drivers, no? Or I misunderstand the hierarchy.

> > > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > > 
> > > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > > some better way to achieve what we need here?
> > 
> > Honestly, I don't know.
> > 
> > The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> > and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> > 
> > Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> > reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> > path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> > 
> > Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> > 
> > Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> > (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> 
> That's a question for Andrew, but I've tried to solicit his comments on
> several occasions concerning this "feature" of DSA but I keep getting
> no reply. Honestly, I don't know the answer to your question.
> 
> The only thing that I know is that Andrew has been promoting this
> feature where a switch port, whether it be connected to the CPU or
> to another switch, which doesn't specify any link parameters will
> automatically use the fastest "phy interface mode" and the fastest
> link speed that can be supported by the DSA device.
> 
> This has caused issues over the last few years which we've bodged
> around in various ways, and with updates to one of the DSA drivers
> this bodging is becoming more of a wart that's spreading. So, I'm
> trying to find a way to solve this.
> 
> My initial approach was to avoid fiddling with the firmware tree,
> but Vladimir proposed this approach as being cleaner - and it means
> the "bodge" becomes completely localised in the DSA (distributed
> switch architecture) code rather than being spread into phylink.
> 
> I wish we could get rid of this "feature" but since it's been
> established for many years, and we have at least one known driver
> that uses it, getting rid of it breaks existing firmware trees.
> I think we also have one other driver that makes use of it as
> well, but I can't say for certain (because it's not really possible
> to discern which drivers use this feature from reading the driver
> code.) I've tried asking Andrew if he knows and got no response.
> 
> So I'm in a complete information vacuum here - all that I know is
> that trying to convert the mv88e6xxx DSA driver to use phylink_pcs
> will break it (as reported by Marek Behún), because phylink doesn't
> get used if firmware is using this "defaulting" feature.
> 
> It's part of the DT binding, and remains so today - the properties
> specifying the "phy-mode", "fixed-link" etc all remain optional.

Okay, grepping the kernel I see this:

	dn = fwnode_get_named_child_node(fwnode, "fixed-link");

This seems the same what you need. I dunno why swnode should be created with
a name for this?

Eliminating an empty root node sounds plausible effect, but the consequences
are not 1:1 mapping of swnodes as it's designed for

  firmware device node		+=	unique root swnode
    property "X"		+=	property "Y"
    child "A"			+=	child "B"

Resulting firmware node as driver sees it:

	device node
		property "X"
		property "Y"
		child "A"
		child "B"

That's all said, I guess the way with a two swnodes (hierarhy) is the correct
one from the beginning.

To the API, now I can tell you how to validate!

Just be sure if there is no name provided, we are just fine. Otherwise
parent _swnode_ should be non-NULL. In such case parent can be only set
either dynamically _or_ statically assigned with a name.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:11:40PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:41PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.
> > > 
> > > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > > runtime?
> > 
> > For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> > Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> > names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> > 
> > When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> > collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> > but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> > 
> > > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > > this binding.
> > 
> > And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> > 
> > For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> > it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.
> 
> Good point - I guess we at least need to attach the swnode parent to the
> device so its path is unique, because right now that isn't the case. I'm
> guessing that:
> 
>         new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
> 
> will create something at the root of the swnode tree, and then:
> 
>         fixed_link_fwnode = fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
>                                                               new_port_fwnode,
>                                                               "fixed-link");
> 
> will create a node with a fixed name. I guess it in part depends what
> pathname the first node gets (which we don't specify.) I'm not familiar
> with the swnode code to know what happens with the naming for the first
> node.

First node's name will be unique which is guaranteed by IDA framework. If we
have already 2B nodes, then yes, it would be problematic (but 2^31 ought to be
enough :-).

> However, it seems sensible to me to attach the first node to the device
> node, thus giving it a unique fwnode path. Does that solve the problem
> in swnode land?

Yes, but in the driver you will have that as child of the device, analogue in DT

  my_root_node { // equal the level of device node you attach it to
	  fixed-link {
	  }
  }

(Sorry, I don't know the DT syntax by heart, but I hope you got the idea.)

To access it will be something like

  child = fwnode_get_named_child_node(fwnode, "fixed-link");

And reading properties, if needed,

  ret = fnode_property_read_...(child, ...);


But this might require to adopt drivers, no? Or I misunderstand the hierarchy.

> > > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > > 
> > > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > > some better way to achieve what we need here?
> > 
> > Honestly, I don't know.
> > 
> > The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> > and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> > 
> > Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> > reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> > path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> > 
> > Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> > 
> > Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> > (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> 
> That's a question for Andrew, but I've tried to solicit his comments on
> several occasions concerning this "feature" of DSA but I keep getting
> no reply. Honestly, I don't know the answer to your question.
> 
> The only thing that I know is that Andrew has been promoting this
> feature where a switch port, whether it be connected to the CPU or
> to another switch, which doesn't specify any link parameters will
> automatically use the fastest "phy interface mode" and the fastest
> link speed that can be supported by the DSA device.
> 
> This has caused issues over the last few years which we've bodged
> around in various ways, and with updates to one of the DSA drivers
> this bodging is becoming more of a wart that's spreading. So, I'm
> trying to find a way to solve this.
> 
> My initial approach was to avoid fiddling with the firmware tree,
> but Vladimir proposed this approach as being cleaner - and it means
> the "bodge" becomes completely localised in the DSA (distributed
> switch architecture) code rather than being spread into phylink.
> 
> I wish we could get rid of this "feature" but since it's been
> established for many years, and we have at least one known driver
> that uses it, getting rid of it breaks existing firmware trees.
> I think we also have one other driver that makes use of it as
> well, but I can't say for certain (because it's not really possible
> to discern which drivers use this feature from reading the driver
> code.) I've tried asking Andrew if he knows and got no response.
> 
> So I'm in a complete information vacuum here - all that I know is
> that trying to convert the mv88e6xxx DSA driver to use phylink_pcs
> will break it (as reported by Marek Behún), because phylink doesn't
> get used if firmware is using this "defaulting" feature.
> 
> It's part of the DT binding, and remains so today - the properties
> specifying the "phy-mode", "fixed-link" etc all remain optional.

Okay, grepping the kernel I see this:

	dn = fwnode_get_named_child_node(fwnode, "fixed-link");

This seems the same what you need. I dunno why swnode should be created with
a name for this?

Eliminating an empty root node sounds plausible effect, but the consequences
are not 1:1 mapping of swnodes as it's designed for

  firmware device node		+=	unique root swnode
    property "X"		+=	property "Y"
    child "A"			+=	child "B"

Resulting firmware node as driver sees it:

	device node
		property "X"
		property "Y"
		child "A"
		child "B"

That's all said, I guess the way with a two swnodes (hierarhy) is the correct
one from the beginning.

To the API, now I can tell you how to validate!

Just be sure if there is no name provided, we are just fine. Otherwise
parent _swnode_ should be non-NULL. In such case parent can be only set
either dynamically _or_ statically assigned with a name.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] net: dsa: use swnode fixed-link if using default params

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:13:19PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:59:25PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:36:29PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:11:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:48PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > > > Co-developed by Vladimir Oltean and myself.
> > > > 
> > > > Why not to use
> > > > 
> > > >   Co-developed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > 
> > > Ah, that's an official thing. Thanks.
> > 
> > Yep, it's even documented in Submitting Patches.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > > > +	phy_node = of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy-handle", 0);
> > > > 
> > > > fwnode in the name, why not to use fwnode APIs?
> > > > 
> > > > 	fwnode_find_reference();
> > > 
> > > Marcin has a series converting DSA to use fwnode things - currently DSA
> > > does not support ACPI, so converting it to fwnode doesn't make that much
> > > sese until the proper ACPI patches get merged, which have now been
> > > rebased on this series by Marcin in the expectation that these patches
> > > would be merged... so I don't want to tred on Marcin's feet on that.
> > 
> > But it's normal development process...
> > 
> > Anyway, it seems to me that you are using fwnode out of that (with the
> > exception of one call). To me it looks that you add a work to him, rather
> > than making his life easier, since you know ahead that this is going to be
> > converted.
> 
> No, I didn't know ahead of time until Marcin piped up about it, and
> then we discussed how to resolve the conflict between the two patch
> sets.

But now you know that and since your series is not yet in, back to phase 1,
i.e. "normal development process (with additional coordination required)".

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] net: dsa: use swnode fixed-link if using default params

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:13:19PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:59:25PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:36:29PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:11:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:01:48PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > > > Co-developed by Vladimir Oltean and myself.
> > > > 
> > > > Why not to use
> > > > 
> > > >   Co-developed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > 
> > > Ah, that's an official thing. Thanks.
> > 
> > Yep, it's even documented in Submitting Patches.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > > > +	phy_node = of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy-handle", 0);
> > > > 
> > > > fwnode in the name, why not to use fwnode APIs?
> > > > 
> > > > 	fwnode_find_reference();
> > > 
> > > Marcin has a series converting DSA to use fwnode things - currently DSA
> > > does not support ACPI, so converting it to fwnode doesn't make that much
> > > sese until the proper ACPI patches get merged, which have now been
> > > rebased on this series by Marcin in the expectation that these patches
> > > would be merged... so I don't want to tred on Marcin's feet on that.
> > 
> > But it's normal development process...
> > 
> > Anyway, it seems to me that you are using fwnode out of that (with the
> > exception of one call). To me it looks that you add a work to him, rather
> > than making his life easier, since you know ahead that this is going to be
> > converted.
> 
> No, I didn't know ahead of time until Marcin piped up about it, and
> then we discussed how to resolve the conflict between the two patch
> sets.

But now you know that and since your series is not yet in, back to phase 1,
i.e. "normal development process (with additional coordination required)".

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 11:07:30PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:11:40PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > Good point - I guess we at least need to attach the swnode parent to the
> > device so its path is unique, because right now that isn't the case. I'm
> > guessing that:
> > 
> >         new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
> > 
> > will create something at the root of the swnode tree, and then:
> > 
> >         fixed_link_fwnode = fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
> >                                                               new_port_fwnode,
> >                                                               "fixed-link");
> > 
> > will create a node with a fixed name. I guess it in part depends what
> > pathname the first node gets (which we don't specify.) I'm not familiar
> > with the swnode code to know what happens with the naming for the first
> > node.
> 
> First node's name will be unique which is guaranteed by IDA framework. If we
> have already 2B nodes, then yes, it would be problematic (but 2^31 ought to be
> enough :-).
> 
> > However, it seems sensible to me to attach the first node to the device
> > node, thus giving it a unique fwnode path. Does that solve the problem
> > in swnode land?
> 
> Yes, but in the driver you will have that as child of the device, analogue in DT
> 
>   my_root_node { // equal the level of device node you attach it to
> 	  fixed-link {
> 	  }
>   }
> 
> (Sorry, I don't know the DT syntax by heart, but I hope you got the idea.)

Yes, that looks about right.

What we're attempting to do here is create the swnode equivalent of this
DT description:

	some_node {
		phy-mode = "foo";

		fixed-link {
			speed = X;
			full-duplex;
		};
	};

and the some_node fwnode handle gets passed into phylink for it to
parse - we never attach it to the firmware tree itself. Once phylink
has parsed it, we destroy the swnode tree since it's no longer useful.

This would get used in this situation as an example:

	switch@4 {
		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";

		ports {
			port@0 {
				reg = <0>;
				phy-mode = "internal";
				phy-handle = <&sw_phy_0>;
			};
			...
			port@5 {
				reg = <5>;
				label = "cpu";
				ethernet = <&eth1>;
			};
		};
	};

The DSA driver knows the capabilities of the chip, so it knows what the
fastest "phy-mode" and speed would be, and whether full or half duplex
are supported.

We need to get this information into phylink some how, and my initial
approach was to add a new function to phylink to achieve that.

We would normally have passed the "port@5" node to phylink, just as we
pass the "port@0" node. However, because the "port@5" operates as a
fixed-link as determined by the hardware/driver, we need some way to
get that into phylink.

So, Vladimir's approach is to create a swnode tree that reflects the
DT layout, and rather than passing the "port@5" as a fwnode to phylink,
we instead pass that "some_node" swnode instead. Phylink then uses
normal fwnode APIs to parse the swnode tree it's been given, resulting
in it picking up the fixed-link specification as if it had been in the
original DT.

We don't augment the existing firmware tree for "port@5", we are
effectively creating a small sub-tree and using it as a subsitute
description.

I hope that clarifies what is going on here and why.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 11:07:30PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:11:40PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > Good point - I guess we at least need to attach the swnode parent to the
> > device so its path is unique, because right now that isn't the case. I'm
> > guessing that:
> > 
> >         new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
> > 
> > will create something at the root of the swnode tree, and then:
> > 
> >         fixed_link_fwnode = fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
> >                                                               new_port_fwnode,
> >                                                               "fixed-link");
> > 
> > will create a node with a fixed name. I guess it in part depends what
> > pathname the first node gets (which we don't specify.) I'm not familiar
> > with the swnode code to know what happens with the naming for the first
> > node.
> 
> First node's name will be unique which is guaranteed by IDA framework. If we
> have already 2B nodes, then yes, it would be problematic (but 2^31 ought to be
> enough :-).
> 
> > However, it seems sensible to me to attach the first node to the device
> > node, thus giving it a unique fwnode path. Does that solve the problem
> > in swnode land?
> 
> Yes, but in the driver you will have that as child of the device, analogue in DT
> 
>   my_root_node { // equal the level of device node you attach it to
> 	  fixed-link {
> 	  }
>   }
> 
> (Sorry, I don't know the DT syntax by heart, but I hope you got the idea.)

Yes, that looks about right.

What we're attempting to do here is create the swnode equivalent of this
DT description:

	some_node {
		phy-mode = "foo";

		fixed-link {
			speed = X;
			full-duplex;
		};
	};

and the some_node fwnode handle gets passed into phylink for it to
parse - we never attach it to the firmware tree itself. Once phylink
has parsed it, we destroy the swnode tree since it's no longer useful.

This would get used in this situation as an example:

	switch@4 {
		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";

		ports {
			port@0 {
				reg = <0>;
				phy-mode = "internal";
				phy-handle = <&sw_phy_0>;
			};
			...
			port@5 {
				reg = <5>;
				label = "cpu";
				ethernet = <&eth1>;
			};
		};
	};

The DSA driver knows the capabilities of the chip, so it knows what the
fastest "phy-mode" and speed would be, and whether full or half duplex
are supported.

We need to get this information into phylink some how, and my initial
approach was to add a new function to phylink to achieve that.

We would normally have passed the "port@5" node to phylink, just as we
pass the "port@0" node. However, because the "port@5" operates as a
fixed-link as determined by the hardware/driver, we need some way to
get that into phylink.

So, Vladimir's approach is to create a swnode tree that reflects the
DT layout, and rather than passing the "port@5" as a fwnode to phylink,
we instead pass that "some_node" swnode instead. Phylink then uses
normal fwnode APIs to parse the swnode tree it's been given, resulting
in it picking up the fixed-link specification as if it had been in the
original DT.

We don't augment the existing firmware tree for "port@5", we are
effectively creating a small sub-tree and using it as a subsitute
description.

I hope that clarifies what is going on here and why.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Marek Behún]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:24:09 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:14:58PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:53:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:  
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:  
> > > > > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > > > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > > > > runtime?  
> > > > 
> > > > For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> > > > Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> > > > names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> > > > 
> > > > When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> > > > collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> > > > but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> > > >   
> > > > > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > > > > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > > > > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > > > > this binding.  
> > > > 
> > > > And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> > > > 
> > > > For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> > > > it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.
> > > >   
> > > > > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > > > > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > > > > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > > > > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > > > > some better way to achieve what we need here?  
> > > > 
> > > > Honestly, I don't know.
> > > > 
> > > > The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> > > > and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> > > > 
> > > > Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> > > > reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> > > > path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> > > > 
> > > > Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> > > > (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> > > > 
> > > > How graphs are used with swnodes, you may look into IPU3 (Intel Camera)
> > > > glue driver to support devices before MIPI standardisation of the
> > > > respective properties.  
> > > 
> > > Forgot to say (yes, it maybe obvious) that this API will be exported,
> > > anyone can use it and trap into the similar issue, because, for example,
> > > of testing in environment with a single instance of the caller.  
> > 
> > I think we're coming to the conclusion that using swnodes is not the
> > correct approach for this problem, correct?  
> 
> If I understand the possibilities of the usage in _this_ case, then it's
> would be problematic (it does not mean it's incorrect). It might be due to
> swnode design restrictions which shouldn't be made, I dunno. That' why
> it's better to ask the others for their opinions.
> 
> By design swnode's name makes not much sense, because the payload there
> is a property set, where _name_ is a must.
> 
> Now, telling you this, I'm questioning myself why the heck I added names
> to swnodes in the intel_quark_i2c_gpio driver...

1. the way we use this new named swnode (in patch 5/6 of this series) is
   that it gets destroyed immediately after being parsed, so I don't
   think there will be collisions in the namespace for forseeable future

   also, we first create an unnamed swnode for port and only then
   fixed-link swnode as a child.

      new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
      ...
      fixed_link_fwnode =
        fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
                                          new_port_fwnode, "fixed-link");

   so there shouldn't be a name collision, since the port node gets a
   unique name, or am I misunderstanding this?

2. even if there was a problem with name collision, I think the place
   that needs to be fixed is swnode system. What use are swnodes if
   they cannot be used like this?

Marek

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Marek Behún]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:24:09 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:14:58PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:53:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:  
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:  
> > > > > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > > > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > > > > runtime?  
> > > > 
> > > > For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> > > > Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> > > > names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> > > > 
> > > > When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> > > > collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> > > > but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> > > >   
> > > > > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > > > > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > > > > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > > > > this binding.  
> > > > 
> > > > And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> > > > 
> > > > For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> > > > it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.
> > > >   
> > > > > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > > > > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > > > > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > > > > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > > > > some better way to achieve what we need here?  
> > > > 
> > > > Honestly, I don't know.
> > > > 
> > > > The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> > > > and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> > > > 
> > > > Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> > > > reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> > > > path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> > > > 
> > > > Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> > > > (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> > > > 
> > > > How graphs are used with swnodes, you may look into IPU3 (Intel Camera)
> > > > glue driver to support devices before MIPI standardisation of the
> > > > respective properties.  
> > > 
> > > Forgot to say (yes, it maybe obvious) that this API will be exported,
> > > anyone can use it and trap into the similar issue, because, for example,
> > > of testing in environment with a single instance of the caller.  
> > 
> > I think we're coming to the conclusion that using swnodes is not the
> > correct approach for this problem, correct?  
> 
> If I understand the possibilities of the usage in _this_ case, then it's
> would be problematic (it does not mean it's incorrect). It might be due to
> swnode design restrictions which shouldn't be made, I dunno. That' why
> it's better to ask the others for their opinions.
> 
> By design swnode's name makes not much sense, because the payload there
> is a property set, where _name_ is a must.
> 
> Now, telling you this, I'm questioning myself why the heck I added names
> to swnodes in the intel_quark_i2c_gpio driver...

1. the way we use this new named swnode (in patch 5/6 of this series) is
   that it gets destroyed immediately after being parsed, so I don't
   think there will be collisions in the namespace for forseeable future

   also, we first create an unnamed swnode for port and only then
   fixed-link swnode as a child.

      new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
      ...
      fixed_link_fwnode =
        fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
                                          new_port_fwnode, "fixed-link");

   so there shouldn't be a name collision, since the port node gets a
   unique name, or am I misunderstanding this?

2. even if there was a problem with name collision, I think the place
   that needs to be fixed is swnode system. What use are swnodes if
   they cannot be used like this?

Marek

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andrew Lunn]

> > Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> > (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> 
> That's a question for Andrew, but I've tried to solicit his comments on
> several occasions concerning this "feature" of DSA but I keep getting
> no reply. Honestly, I don't know the answer to your question.
> 
> The only thing that I know is that Andrew has been promoting this
> feature where a switch port, whether it be connected to the CPU or
> to another switch, which doesn't specify any link parameters will
> automatically use the fastest "phy interface mode" and the fastest
> link speed that can be supported by the DSA device.

This goes back to the very beginning of DSA, as far as i know. This
was before the times of DT. Platform data was used to describe the
switch tree, and it was pretty minimalist. It just listed the ports of
the switches and their names. The 'cpu' port had the name 'cpu', and
DSA ports either did not have a name, or 'dsa'. I don't
remember. There was also a table describing the routing between
switches in the tree. The platform data had nothing to describe
interface speeds, and i'm not sure phylib was even involved to control
the integrated PHYs. Marvell switches would power up their PHYs in
autoneg mode, meaning they just worked. In order to make the CPU port
work, which did not have a PHY, the driver would configure the CPU
port into its fastest mode. Same for the DSA ports. A Marvell Switch
connected to a Marvell SoC NIC worked.

Sometime later DT became the way to describe ARM boards, and pretty
much all boards with switches were ARM boards. If i remember
correctly, Florian did the first binding, which was basically
translate the platform data straight into DT. Since the platform data
had no way to describe port speed, the DT binding had no way to
describe port speed. It just kept on defaulting to the maximum speed.

The DT world evolved, and DT bindings were produced for phylib.

At some point, DSA got an interface to phylib. Maybe it was there from
the beginning, maybe it was added later. I don't know. As a result,
the DT properties for phylib became valid for switch user ports.

Without looking at git, i'm a bit hazy why fixed-link was introduced
for CPU and DSA ports. At some point in time, i was asked to make a
Marvell switch work with a Freescale FEC. The FEC had a Fast Ethernet,
where as the switch CPU port was 1G. It could be that in order to make
this work, i added fixed-link support to CPU ports, so i could specify
the CPU port speed, rather than use the default which would not work.

At some point, i had a board with an RGMII interface used as a DSA
link between two switches, and i needed to specify the RGMII
delays. It could of been using a fixed-link allowed the phy-mode to be
specified for a DSA port, thus allowing the delays to be specified?

Basically, fixed-phy for CPU and DSA was added to solve a limitation
of the default fastest port speed not always working.

With time, more vendors got behind DSA and switches other than Marvell
were added. There was not much documentation about the expectations of
switch drivers, and i doubt this default maximum speed behaviour of
CPU ports was documented. I probably commented on earlier drivers that
fixed-link could be used, or that the Marvell behaviour could be
copied.

And some devices probably power up ports at their maximum speed,
others can probably be strapped to specific modes. Some drivers
default to maximum speed, others required fixed links to specific the
speed. As Russell says, code inspection is not enough to tell what is
going on.

	Andrew

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andrew Lunn]

> > Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> > (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> 
> That's a question for Andrew, but I've tried to solicit his comments on
> several occasions concerning this "feature" of DSA but I keep getting
> no reply. Honestly, I don't know the answer to your question.
> 
> The only thing that I know is that Andrew has been promoting this
> feature where a switch port, whether it be connected to the CPU or
> to another switch, which doesn't specify any link parameters will
> automatically use the fastest "phy interface mode" and the fastest
> link speed that can be supported by the DSA device.

This goes back to the very beginning of DSA, as far as i know. This
was before the times of DT. Platform data was used to describe the
switch tree, and it was pretty minimalist. It just listed the ports of
the switches and their names. The 'cpu' port had the name 'cpu', and
DSA ports either did not have a name, or 'dsa'. I don't
remember. There was also a table describing the routing between
switches in the tree. The platform data had nothing to describe
interface speeds, and i'm not sure phylib was even involved to control
the integrated PHYs. Marvell switches would power up their PHYs in
autoneg mode, meaning they just worked. In order to make the CPU port
work, which did not have a PHY, the driver would configure the CPU
port into its fastest mode. Same for the DSA ports. A Marvell Switch
connected to a Marvell SoC NIC worked.

Sometime later DT became the way to describe ARM boards, and pretty
much all boards with switches were ARM boards. If i remember
correctly, Florian did the first binding, which was basically
translate the platform data straight into DT. Since the platform data
had no way to describe port speed, the DT binding had no way to
describe port speed. It just kept on defaulting to the maximum speed.

The DT world evolved, and DT bindings were produced for phylib.

At some point, DSA got an interface to phylib. Maybe it was there from
the beginning, maybe it was added later. I don't know. As a result,
the DT properties for phylib became valid for switch user ports.

Without looking at git, i'm a bit hazy why fixed-link was introduced
for CPU and DSA ports. At some point in time, i was asked to make a
Marvell switch work with a Freescale FEC. The FEC had a Fast Ethernet,
where as the switch CPU port was 1G. It could be that in order to make
this work, i added fixed-link support to CPU ports, so i could specify
the CPU port speed, rather than use the default which would not work.

At some point, i had a board with an RGMII interface used as a DSA
link between two switches, and i needed to specify the RGMII
delays. It could of been using a fixed-link allowed the phy-mode to be
specified for a DSA port, thus allowing the delays to be specified?

Basically, fixed-phy for CPU and DSA was added to solve a limitation
of the default fastest port speed not always working.

With time, more vendors got behind DSA and switches other than Marvell
were added. There was not much documentation about the expectations of
switch drivers, and i doubt this default maximum speed behaviour of
CPU ports was documented. I probably commented on earlier drivers that
fixed-link could be used, or that the Marvell behaviour could be
copied.

And some devices probably power up ports at their maximum speed,
others can probably be strapped to specific modes. Some drivers
default to maximum speed, others required fixed links to specific the
speed. As Russell says, code inspection is not enough to tell what is
going on.

	Andrew

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:39:42PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:24:09 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:14:58PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:53:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:  
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:  
> > > > > > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > > > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > > > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > > > > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > > > > > runtime?  
> > > > > 
> > > > > For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> > > > > Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> > > > > names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> > > > > 
> > > > > When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> > > > > collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> > > > > but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> > > > >   
> > > > > > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > > > > > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > > > > > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > > > > > this binding.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> > > > > 
> > > > > For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> > > > > it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.
> > > > >   
> > > > > > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > > > > > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > > > > > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > > > > > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > > > > > some better way to achieve what we need here?  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Honestly, I don't know.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> > > > > and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> > > > > reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> > > > > path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> > > > > (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> > > > > 
> > > > > How graphs are used with swnodes, you may look into IPU3 (Intel Camera)
> > > > > glue driver to support devices before MIPI standardisation of the
> > > > > respective properties.  
> > > > 
> > > > Forgot to say (yes, it maybe obvious) that this API will be exported,
> > > > anyone can use it and trap into the similar issue, because, for example,
> > > > of testing in environment with a single instance of the caller.  
> > > 
> > > I think we're coming to the conclusion that using swnodes is not the
> > > correct approach for this problem, correct?  
> > 
> > If I understand the possibilities of the usage in _this_ case, then it's
> > would be problematic (it does not mean it's incorrect). It might be due to
> > swnode design restrictions which shouldn't be made, I dunno. That' why
> > it's better to ask the others for their opinions.
> > 
> > By design swnode's name makes not much sense, because the payload there
> > is a property set, where _name_ is a must.
> > 
> > Now, telling you this, I'm questioning myself why the heck I added names
> > to swnodes in the intel_quark_i2c_gpio driver...
> 
> 1. the way we use this new named swnode (in patch 5/6 of this series) is
>    that it gets destroyed immediately after being parsed, so I don't
>    think there will be collisions in the namespace for forseeable future
> 
>    also, we first create an unnamed swnode for port and only then
>    fixed-link swnode as a child.
> 
>       new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
>       ...
>       fixed_link_fwnode =
>         fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
>                                           new_port_fwnode, "fixed-link");
> 
>    so there shouldn't be a name collision, since the port node gets a
>    unique name, or am I misunderstanding this?

This is not problem, but what I was talking about is how to guarantee this
hierarchy? See what I answered to RNK.

> 2. even if there was a problem with name collision, I think the place
>    that needs to be fixed is swnode system. What use are swnodes if
>    they cannot be used like this?

Precisely, that's why I don't want to introduce an API that needs to be fixed.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:39:42PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:24:09 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:14:58PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:53:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:  
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:  
> > > > > > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > > > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > > > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > > > > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > > > > > runtime?  
> > > > > 
> > > > > For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> > > > > Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> > > > > names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> > > > > 
> > > > > When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> > > > > collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> > > > > but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> > > > >   
> > > > > > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > > > > > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > > > > > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > > > > > this binding.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> > > > > 
> > > > > For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> > > > > it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.
> > > > >   
> > > > > > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > > > > > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > > > > > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > > > > > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > > > > > some better way to achieve what we need here?  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Honestly, I don't know.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> > > > > and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> > > > > reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> > > > > path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> > > > > (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> > > > > 
> > > > > How graphs are used with swnodes, you may look into IPU3 (Intel Camera)
> > > > > glue driver to support devices before MIPI standardisation of the
> > > > > respective properties.  
> > > > 
> > > > Forgot to say (yes, it maybe obvious) that this API will be exported,
> > > > anyone can use it and trap into the similar issue, because, for example,
> > > > of testing in environment with a single instance of the caller.  
> > > 
> > > I think we're coming to the conclusion that using swnodes is not the
> > > correct approach for this problem, correct?  
> > 
> > If I understand the possibilities of the usage in _this_ case, then it's
> > would be problematic (it does not mean it's incorrect). It might be due to
> > swnode design restrictions which shouldn't be made, I dunno. That' why
> > it's better to ask the others for their opinions.
> > 
> > By design swnode's name makes not much sense, because the payload there
> > is a property set, where _name_ is a must.
> > 
> > Now, telling you this, I'm questioning myself why the heck I added names
> > to swnodes in the intel_quark_i2c_gpio driver...
> 
> 1. the way we use this new named swnode (in patch 5/6 of this series) is
>    that it gets destroyed immediately after being parsed, so I don't
>    think there will be collisions in the namespace for forseeable future
> 
>    also, we first create an unnamed swnode for port and only then
>    fixed-link swnode as a child.
> 
>       new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
>       ...
>       fixed_link_fwnode =
>         fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
>                                           new_port_fwnode, "fixed-link");
> 
>    so there shouldn't be a name collision, since the port node gets a
>    unique name, or am I misunderstanding this?

This is not problem, but what I was talking about is how to guarantee this
hierarchy? See what I answered to RNK.

> 2. even if there was a problem with name collision, I think the place
>    that needs to be fixed is swnode system. What use are swnodes if
>    they cannot be used like this?

Precisely, that's why I don't want to introduce an API that needs to be fixed.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Marek Behún]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 23:48:21 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:39:42PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:24:09 +0300
> > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:14:58PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:  
> > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:53:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:    
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:    
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:    
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:    
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:    
> > > > > > > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > > > > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > > > > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.    
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > > > > > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.    
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > > > > > > runtime?    
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> > > > > > Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> > > > > > names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> > > > > > collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> > > > > > but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> > > > > >     
> > > > > > > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > > > > > > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > > > > > > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > > > > > > this binding.    
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> > > > > > it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.
> > > > > >     
> > > > > > > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > > > > > > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > > > > > > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > > > > > > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > > > > > > some better way to achieve what we need here?    
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Honestly, I don't know.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> > > > > > and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> > > > > > reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> > > > > > path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> > > > > > (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > How graphs are used with swnodes, you may look into IPU3 (Intel Camera)
> > > > > > glue driver to support devices before MIPI standardisation of the
> > > > > > respective properties.    
> > > > > 
> > > > > Forgot to say (yes, it maybe obvious) that this API will be exported,
> > > > > anyone can use it and trap into the similar issue, because, for example,
> > > > > of testing in environment with a single instance of the caller.    
> > > > 
> > > > I think we're coming to the conclusion that using swnodes is not the
> > > > correct approach for this problem, correct?    
> > > 
> > > If I understand the possibilities of the usage in _this_ case, then it's
> > > would be problematic (it does not mean it's incorrect). It might be due to
> > > swnode design restrictions which shouldn't be made, I dunno. That' why
> > > it's better to ask the others for their opinions.
> > > 
> > > By design swnode's name makes not much sense, because the payload there
> > > is a property set, where _name_ is a must.
> > > 
> > > Now, telling you this, I'm questioning myself why the heck I added names
> > > to swnodes in the intel_quark_i2c_gpio driver...  
> > 
> > 1. the way we use this new named swnode (in patch 5/6 of this series) is
> >    that it gets destroyed immediately after being parsed, so I don't
> >    think there will be collisions in the namespace for forseeable future
> > 
> >    also, we first create an unnamed swnode for port and only then
> >    fixed-link swnode as a child.
> > 
> >       new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
> >       ...
> >       fixed_link_fwnode =
> >         fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
> >                                           new_port_fwnode, "fixed-link");
> > 
> >    so there shouldn't be a name collision, since the port node gets a
> >    unique name, or am I misunderstanding this?  
> 
> This is not problem, but what I was talking about is how to guarantee this
> hierarchy? See what I answered to RNK.
> 
> > 2. even if there was a problem with name collision, I think the place
> >    that needs to be fixed is swnode system. What use are swnodes if
> >    they cannot be used like this?  
> 
> Precisely, that's why I don't want to introduce an API that needs to be fixed.
> 

Aha, so you want to ensure that root swnodes are created with unique
name?

Can't we just make it so that named software node must have a parent?

Marek

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Marek Behún]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 23:48:21 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:39:42PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:24:09 +0300
> > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:14:58PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:  
> > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:53:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:    
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:43:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:    
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:    
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:    
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:48:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:    
> > > > > > > > > So won't kobject_init_and_add() fail on namespace collision? Is it the
> > > > > > > > > problem that it's going to fail, or that it's not trivial to statically
> > > > > > > > > determine whether it'll fail?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Sorry, but I don't see something actionable about this.    
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I'm talking about validation before a runtime. But if you think that is fine,
> > > > > > > > let's fail it at runtime, okay, and consume more backtraces in the future.    
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Is there any sane way to do validation of this namespace before
> > > > > > > runtime?    
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For statically compiled, I think we can do it (to some extent).
> > > > > > Currently only three drivers, if I'm not mistaken, define software nodes with
> > > > > > names. It's easy to check that their node names are unique.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > When you allow such an API then we might have tracebacks (from sysfs) bout name
> > > > > > collisions. Not that is something new to kernel (we have seen many of a kind),
> > > > > > but I prefer, if possible, to validate this before sysfs issues a traceback.
> > > > > >     
> > > > > > > The problem in this instance is we need a node named "fixed-link" that
> > > > > > > is attached to the parent node as that is defined in the binding doc,
> > > > > > > and we're creating swnodes to provide software generated nodes for
> > > > > > > this binding.    
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > And how you guarantee that it will be only a single one with unique pathname?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For example, you have two DSA cards (or whatever it's called) in the SMP system,
> > > > > > it mean that there is non-zero probability of coexisting swnodes for them.
> > > > > >     
> > > > > > > There could be several such nodes scattered around, but in this
> > > > > > > instance they are very short-lived before they are destroyed, they
> > > > > > > don't even need to be published to userspace (and its probably a waste
> > > > > > > of CPU cycles for them to be published there.)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So, for this specific case, is this the best approach, or is there
> > > > > > > some better way to achieve what we need here?    
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Honestly, I don't know.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The "workaround" (but it looks to me rather a hack) is to create unique swnode
> > > > > > and make fixed-link as a child of it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Or entire concept of the root swnodes (when name is provided) should be
> > > > > > reconsidered, so somehow we will have a uniqueness so that the entire
> > > > > > path(s) behind it will be caller-dependent. But this I also don't like.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Maybe Heikki, Sakari, Rafael can share their thoughts...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Just for my learning, why PHY uses "fixed-link" instead of relying on a
> > > > > > (firmware) graph? It might be the actual solution to your problem.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > How graphs are used with swnodes, you may look into IPU3 (Intel Camera)
> > > > > > glue driver to support devices before MIPI standardisation of the
> > > > > > respective properties.    
> > > > > 
> > > > > Forgot to say (yes, it maybe obvious) that this API will be exported,
> > > > > anyone can use it and trap into the similar issue, because, for example,
> > > > > of testing in environment with a single instance of the caller.    
> > > > 
> > > > I think we're coming to the conclusion that using swnodes is not the
> > > > correct approach for this problem, correct?    
> > > 
> > > If I understand the possibilities of the usage in _this_ case, then it's
> > > would be problematic (it does not mean it's incorrect). It might be due to
> > > swnode design restrictions which shouldn't be made, I dunno. That' why
> > > it's better to ask the others for their opinions.
> > > 
> > > By design swnode's name makes not much sense, because the payload there
> > > is a property set, where _name_ is a must.
> > > 
> > > Now, telling you this, I'm questioning myself why the heck I added names
> > > to swnodes in the intel_quark_i2c_gpio driver...  
> > 
> > 1. the way we use this new named swnode (in patch 5/6 of this series) is
> >    that it gets destroyed immediately after being parsed, so I don't
> >    think there will be collisions in the namespace for forseeable future
> > 
> >    also, we first create an unnamed swnode for port and only then
> >    fixed-link swnode as a child.
> > 
> >       new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
> >       ...
> >       fixed_link_fwnode =
> >         fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
> >                                           new_port_fwnode, "fixed-link");
> > 
> >    so there shouldn't be a name collision, since the port node gets a
> >    unique name, or am I misunderstanding this?  
> 
> This is not problem, but what I was talking about is how to guarantee this
> hierarchy? See what I answered to RNK.
> 
> > 2. even if there was a problem with name collision, I think the place
> >    that needs to be fixed is swnode system. What use are swnodes if
> >    they cannot be used like this?  
> 
> Precisely, that's why I don't want to introduce an API that needs to be fixed.
> 

Aha, so you want to ensure that root swnodes are created with unique
name?

Can't we just make it so that named software node must have a parent?

Marek

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Sakari Ailus]

Hi Russell, Andy,

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:38:42PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 11:07:30PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:11:40PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > Good point - I guess we at least need to attach the swnode parent to the
> > > device so its path is unique, because right now that isn't the case. I'm
> > > guessing that:
> > > 
> > >         new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
> > > 
> > > will create something at the root of the swnode tree, and then:
> > > 
> > >         fixed_link_fwnode = fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
> > >                                                               new_port_fwnode,
> > >                                                               "fixed-link");
> > > 
> > > will create a node with a fixed name. I guess it in part depends what
> > > pathname the first node gets (which we don't specify.) I'm not familiar
> > > with the swnode code to know what happens with the naming for the first
> > > node.
> > 
> > First node's name will be unique which is guaranteed by IDA framework. If we
> > have already 2B nodes, then yes, it would be problematic (but 2^31 ought to be
> > enough :-).
> > 
> > > However, it seems sensible to me to attach the first node to the device
> > > node, thus giving it a unique fwnode path. Does that solve the problem
> > > in swnode land?
> > 
> > Yes, but in the driver you will have that as child of the device, analogue in DT
> > 
> >   my_root_node { // equal the level of device node you attach it to
> > 	  fixed-link {
> > 	  }
> >   }
> > 
> > (Sorry, I don't know the DT syntax by heart, but I hope you got the idea.)
> 
> Yes, that looks about right.
> 
> What we're attempting to do here is create the swnode equivalent of this
> DT description:
> 
> 	some_node {
> 		phy-mode = "foo";
> 
> 		fixed-link {
> 			speed = X;
> 			full-duplex;
> 		};
> 	};
> 
> and the some_node fwnode handle gets passed into phylink for it to
> parse - we never attach it to the firmware tree itself. Once phylink
> has parsed it, we destroy the swnode tree since it's no longer useful.
> 
> This would get used in this situation as an example:
> 
> 	switch@4 {
> 		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
> 
> 		ports {
> 			port@0 {
> 				reg = <0>;
> 				phy-mode = "internal";
> 				phy-handle = <&sw_phy_0>;
> 			};
> 			...
> 			port@5 {
> 				reg = <5>;
> 				label = "cpu";
> 				ethernet = <&eth1>;
> 			};
> 		};
> 	};
> 
> The DSA driver knows the capabilities of the chip, so it knows what the
> fastest "phy-mode" and speed would be, and whether full or half duplex
> are supported.
> 
> We need to get this information into phylink some how, and my initial
> approach was to add a new function to phylink to achieve that.
> 
> We would normally have passed the "port@5" node to phylink, just as we
> pass the "port@0" node. However, because the "port@5" operates as a
> fixed-link as determined by the hardware/driver, we need some way to
> get that into phylink.
> 
> So, Vladimir's approach is to create a swnode tree that reflects the
> DT layout, and rather than passing the "port@5" as a fwnode to phylink,
> we instead pass that "some_node" swnode instead. Phylink then uses
> normal fwnode APIs to parse the swnode tree it's been given, resulting
> in it picking up the fixed-link specification as if it had been in the
> original DT.
> 
> We don't augment the existing firmware tree for "port@5", we are
> effectively creating a small sub-tree and using it as a subsitute
> description.
> 
> I hope that clarifies what is going on here and why.

Basically what your patch is doing is adding a helper function that creates
an fwnode with a given name. This functionality was there previously through
software_node_register_nodes(), with node allocation responsibility residing
on the caller. It's used e.g. here:
drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu3/cio2-bridge.c .

The larger question is perhaps when can you safely remove software nodes.
And which of these two APIs would be preferred. I haven't checked how many
users each has. There's no refcounting nor locking for software nodes, so
once made visible to the rest of the kernel, they're always expected to be
there, unchanged, or at least it needs to be known when they can be removed.

-- 
Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Sakari Ailus]

Hi Russell, Andy,

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:38:42PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 11:07:30PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:11:40PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > Good point - I guess we at least need to attach the swnode parent to the
> > > device so its path is unique, because right now that isn't the case. I'm
> > > guessing that:
> > > 
> > >         new_port_fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(port_props, NULL);
> > > 
> > > will create something at the root of the swnode tree, and then:
> > > 
> > >         fixed_link_fwnode = fwnode_create_named_software_node(fixed_link_props,
> > >                                                               new_port_fwnode,
> > >                                                               "fixed-link");
> > > 
> > > will create a node with a fixed name. I guess it in part depends what
> > > pathname the first node gets (which we don't specify.) I'm not familiar
> > > with the swnode code to know what happens with the naming for the first
> > > node.
> > 
> > First node's name will be unique which is guaranteed by IDA framework. If we
> > have already 2B nodes, then yes, it would be problematic (but 2^31 ought to be
> > enough :-).
> > 
> > > However, it seems sensible to me to attach the first node to the device
> > > node, thus giving it a unique fwnode path. Does that solve the problem
> > > in swnode land?
> > 
> > Yes, but in the driver you will have that as child of the device, analogue in DT
> > 
> >   my_root_node { // equal the level of device node you attach it to
> > 	  fixed-link {
> > 	  }
> >   }
> > 
> > (Sorry, I don't know the DT syntax by heart, but I hope you got the idea.)
> 
> Yes, that looks about right.
> 
> What we're attempting to do here is create the swnode equivalent of this
> DT description:
> 
> 	some_node {
> 		phy-mode = "foo";
> 
> 		fixed-link {
> 			speed = X;
> 			full-duplex;
> 		};
> 	};
> 
> and the some_node fwnode handle gets passed into phylink for it to
> parse - we never attach it to the firmware tree itself. Once phylink
> has parsed it, we destroy the swnode tree since it's no longer useful.
> 
> This would get used in this situation as an example:
> 
> 	switch@4 {
> 		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
> 
> 		ports {
> 			port@0 {
> 				reg = <0>;
> 				phy-mode = "internal";
> 				phy-handle = <&sw_phy_0>;
> 			};
> 			...
> 			port@5 {
> 				reg = <5>;
> 				label = "cpu";
> 				ethernet = <&eth1>;
> 			};
> 		};
> 	};
> 
> The DSA driver knows the capabilities of the chip, so it knows what the
> fastest "phy-mode" and speed would be, and whether full or half duplex
> are supported.
> 
> We need to get this information into phylink some how, and my initial
> approach was to add a new function to phylink to achieve that.
> 
> We would normally have passed the "port@5" node to phylink, just as we
> pass the "port@0" node. However, because the "port@5" operates as a
> fixed-link as determined by the hardware/driver, we need some way to
> get that into phylink.
> 
> So, Vladimir's approach is to create a swnode tree that reflects the
> DT layout, and rather than passing the "port@5" as a fwnode to phylink,
> we instead pass that "some_node" swnode instead. Phylink then uses
> normal fwnode APIs to parse the swnode tree it's been given, resulting
> in it picking up the fixed-link specification as if it had been in the
> original DT.
> 
> We don't augment the existing firmware tree for "port@5", we are
> effectively creating a small sub-tree and using it as a subsitute
> description.
> 
> I hope that clarifies what is going on here and why.

Basically what your patch is doing is adding a helper function that creates
an fwnode with a given name. This functionality was there previously through
software_node_register_nodes(), with node allocation responsibility residing
on the caller. It's used e.g. here:
drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu3/cio2-bridge.c .

The larger question is perhaps when can you safely remove software nodes.
And which of these two APIs would be preferred. I haven't checked how many
users each has. There's no refcounting nor locking for software nodes, so
once made visible to the rest of the kernel, they're always expected to be
there, unchanged, or at least it needs to be known when they can be removed.

-- 
Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:48:51AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > But drivers could also have their CPU port working simply because those
> > are internal to an SoC and don't need any software configuration to pass
> > traffic. In their case, there is no breakage caused by the phylink_pcs
> > conversion, but breakage caused by sudden registration of phylink is
> > plausible, if phylink doesn't get the link parameters right.
> > 
> > And that breakage is preventable. Gradually more drivers could be
> > converted to create a fixed-link software node by printing a warning
> > that they should, and still keep the logic to avoid phylink registration
> > and putting the respective port down. Driver authors might not be very
> > responsive to RFC patch sets, but they do look at new warnings in dmesg
> > and try to see what they're about.
> 
> Are you going to do that conversion then? Good luck trying to find all
> the drivers, sending out series of patches, trying to get people to test
> the changes.

Not sure if that's a rhetorical question and if it is, what it's trying
to prove. Of course I'm not going to do any conversion, that's literally
my whole point, I'd rather err on the side of letting sleeping dogs cry
than force-converting everyone at once.

If there is a breakage report and the driver maintainer won't respond,
then yeah, maybe I'll consider looking at that particular issue and
converting if it helps, but that's kind of why I'm here.

Otherwise, we may end up pushing phylink to drivers which have some
wacky link speeds on the CPU port (like 2000, see b53_force_port_config),
which the software node auto-creation logic absolutely won't get right.
I know Florian said that "we won't see a regression since we do not use
the NATP accelerator which would be the reason to run the port at
2Gbits/sec", but frankly I'm not entirely sure what that even means or
what Florian counts as "regression". Lower overall termination throughput
counts or not? Still not worth risking if this isn't the only instance
of a non-standard speed.

> > What I'm missing is the proof that the phylink_pcs conversion has broken
> > those kinds of switches, and that it's therefore pointless to keep the
> > existing logic for them. Sorry, but you didn't provide it.
> 
> I don't have evidence that existing drivers have broken because I don't
> have the hardware to test. I only have Marvell DSA switch hardware and
> that is it.
> 
> Everything else has to be based on theory because no one bothers to
> respond to my patches, so for 99% of the DSA drivers I'm working in the
> dark - and that makes development an utter shitpile of poo in hell.
> 
> As I've said many times, we have NO CLUE which DSA drivers make use of
> this defaulting behaviour - the only one I'm aware of that does is
> mv88e6xxx. It all depends on the firmware description, driver behaviour
> and hardware behaviour. There is not enough information in the kernel 
> to be able to derive this.
> 
> If there was a reported regression, then I would be looking to get this
> into the NET tree not the NET-NEXT tree.

I think there are authors who weren't even aware they were opting into
this interesting DSA feature when they wrote their driver, but didn't
have the inspiration at the time to validate strict DT bindings either.

We have no proof that they don't have DT blobs using the defaulting
feature somewhere out there, but we don't have any proof that they do,
either. The whole problem could become more manageable if we would let
maintainers say to a user "hey, for my driver this feature was never
intended to work, so sorry if by accident it did, it was a marginal and
undocumented condition and now it's broken, so please use something that
was documented".

The ocelot driver is in this exact state, in fact. I really wish there
was a ready-made helper for validating phylink's OF node; I mentioned this
already, it needs to cater for all of fixed-link/phy-handle/managed/sfp.
The more drivers would be calling this (I think the vast majority of
post-phylink drivers would do it), the more we'd minimize the spectrum
of unforeseen breakage. In turn this would make the issue more tractable.

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:48:51AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > But drivers could also have their CPU port working simply because those
> > are internal to an SoC and don't need any software configuration to pass
> > traffic. In their case, there is no breakage caused by the phylink_pcs
> > conversion, but breakage caused by sudden registration of phylink is
> > plausible, if phylink doesn't get the link parameters right.
> > 
> > And that breakage is preventable. Gradually more drivers could be
> > converted to create a fixed-link software node by printing a warning
> > that they should, and still keep the logic to avoid phylink registration
> > and putting the respective port down. Driver authors might not be very
> > responsive to RFC patch sets, but they do look at new warnings in dmesg
> > and try to see what they're about.
> 
> Are you going to do that conversion then? Good luck trying to find all
> the drivers, sending out series of patches, trying to get people to test
> the changes.

Not sure if that's a rhetorical question and if it is, what it's trying
to prove. Of course I'm not going to do any conversion, that's literally
my whole point, I'd rather err on the side of letting sleeping dogs cry
than force-converting everyone at once.

If there is a breakage report and the driver maintainer won't respond,
then yeah, maybe I'll consider looking at that particular issue and
converting if it helps, but that's kind of why I'm here.

Otherwise, we may end up pushing phylink to drivers which have some
wacky link speeds on the CPU port (like 2000, see b53_force_port_config),
which the software node auto-creation logic absolutely won't get right.
I know Florian said that "we won't see a regression since we do not use
the NATP accelerator which would be the reason to run the port at
2Gbits/sec", but frankly I'm not entirely sure what that even means or
what Florian counts as "regression". Lower overall termination throughput
counts or not? Still not worth risking if this isn't the only instance
of a non-standard speed.

> > What I'm missing is the proof that the phylink_pcs conversion has broken
> > those kinds of switches, and that it's therefore pointless to keep the
> > existing logic for them. Sorry, but you didn't provide it.
> 
> I don't have evidence that existing drivers have broken because I don't
> have the hardware to test. I only have Marvell DSA switch hardware and
> that is it.
> 
> Everything else has to be based on theory because no one bothers to
> respond to my patches, so for 99% of the DSA drivers I'm working in the
> dark - and that makes development an utter shitpile of poo in hell.
> 
> As I've said many times, we have NO CLUE which DSA drivers make use of
> this defaulting behaviour - the only one I'm aware of that does is
> mv88e6xxx. It all depends on the firmware description, driver behaviour
> and hardware behaviour. There is not enough information in the kernel 
> to be able to derive this.
> 
> If there was a reported regression, then I would be looking to get this
> into the NET tree not the NET-NEXT tree.

I think there are authors who weren't even aware they were opting into
this interesting DSA feature when they wrote their driver, but didn't
have the inspiration at the time to validate strict DT bindings either.

We have no proof that they don't have DT blobs using the defaulting
feature somewhere out there, but we don't have any proof that they do,
either. The whole problem could become more manageable if we would let
maintainers say to a user "hey, for my driver this feature was never
intended to work, so sorry if by accident it did, it was a marginal and
undocumented condition and now it's broken, so please use something that
was documented".

The ocelot driver is in this exact state, in fact. I really wish there
was a ready-made helper for validating phylink's OF node; I mentioned this
already, it needs to cater for all of fixed-link/phy-handle/managed/sfp.
The more drivers would be calling this (I think the vast majority of
post-phylink drivers would do it), the more we'd minimize the spectrum
of unforeseen breakage. In turn this would make the issue more tractable.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Vladimir Oltean]

Hi Sakari,

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 08:50:27AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Basically what your patch is doing is adding a helper function that creates
> an fwnode with a given name. This functionality was there previously through
> software_node_register_nodes(), with node allocation responsibility residing
> on the caller. It's used e.g. here:
> drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu3/cio2-bridge.c .
> 
> The larger question is perhaps when can you safely remove software nodes.
> And which of these two APIs would be preferred. I haven't checked how many
> users each has. There's no refcounting nor locking for software nodes, so
> once made visible to the rest of the kernel, they're always expected to be
> there, unchanged, or at least it needs to be known when they can be removed.

Just for my clarity, are you saying that this printf selftest is
violating the software nodes' expectation to always be there unchanged
and never be removed?

static void __init fwnode_pointer(void)
{
	const struct software_node softnodes[] = {
		{ .name = "first", },
		{ .name = "second", .parent = &softnodes[0], },
		{ .name = "third", .parent = &softnodes[1], },
		{ NULL /* Guardian */ }
	};
	const char * const full_name = "first/second/third";
	const char * const full_name_second = "first/second";
	const char * const second_name = "second";
	const char * const third_name = "third";
	int rval;

	rval = software_node_register_nodes(softnodes);
	if (rval) {
		pr_warn("cannot register softnodes; rval %d\n", rval);
		return;
	}

	test(full_name_second, "%pfw", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[1]));
	test(full_name, "%pfw", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[2]));
	test(full_name, "%pfwf", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[2]));
	test(second_name, "%pfwP", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[1]));
	test(third_name, "%pfwP", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[2]));

	software_node_unregister_nodes(softnodes);
}

The use case in this patch set is essentially equivalent to what printf
does: exposing the software nodes to the rest of the kernel and to user
space is probably not necessary, it's just that we need to call a
function that parses their structure (essentially an equivalent to
calling "test" above). Could you indicate whether there is a better
alternative of doing this?

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Vladimir Oltean]

Hi Sakari,

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 08:50:27AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Basically what your patch is doing is adding a helper function that creates
> an fwnode with a given name. This functionality was there previously through
> software_node_register_nodes(), with node allocation responsibility residing
> on the caller. It's used e.g. here:
> drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu3/cio2-bridge.c .
> 
> The larger question is perhaps when can you safely remove software nodes.
> And which of these two APIs would be preferred. I haven't checked how many
> users each has. There's no refcounting nor locking for software nodes, so
> once made visible to the rest of the kernel, they're always expected to be
> there, unchanged, or at least it needs to be known when they can be removed.

Just for my clarity, are you saying that this printf selftest is
violating the software nodes' expectation to always be there unchanged
and never be removed?

static void __init fwnode_pointer(void)
{
	const struct software_node softnodes[] = {
		{ .name = "first", },
		{ .name = "second", .parent = &softnodes[0], },
		{ .name = "third", .parent = &softnodes[1], },
		{ NULL /* Guardian */ }
	};
	const char * const full_name = "first/second/third";
	const char * const full_name_second = "first/second";
	const char * const second_name = "second";
	const char * const third_name = "third";
	int rval;

	rval = software_node_register_nodes(softnodes);
	if (rval) {
		pr_warn("cannot register softnodes; rval %d\n", rval);
		return;
	}

	test(full_name_second, "%pfw", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[1]));
	test(full_name, "%pfw", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[2]));
	test(full_name, "%pfwf", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[2]));
	test(second_name, "%pfwP", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[1]));
	test(third_name, "%pfwP", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[2]));

	software_node_unregister_nodes(softnodes);
}

The use case in this patch set is essentially equivalent to what printf
does: exposing the software nodes to the rest of the kernel and to user
space is probably not necessary, it's just that we need to call a
function that parses their structure (essentially an equivalent to
calling "test" above). Could you indicate whether there is a better
alternative of doing this?

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 01:44:47AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> I really wish there was a ready-made helper for validating phylink's
> OF node; I mentioned this already, it needs to cater for all of
> fixed-link/phy-handle/managed/sfp.

While I was going to expand on this point and state that DSA doesn't
currently instantiate phylink for this OF node:

			port@9 {
				reg = <0x9>;
				label = "cpu";
				ethernet = <&eth1>;
				phy-mode = "2500base-x";
				managed = "in-band-status";
			};

I was proven wrong. Today I learned that of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns
true if the "managed" property exists and its value differs from "auto".
So in the above case, of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns true, hmmm.



On the other hand I found arm64/boot/dts/marvell/cn9130-crb.dtsi, where
the switch, a "marvell,mv88e6190"-compatible (can't determine going just
by that what it actually is) has this:

			port@a {
				reg = <10>;
				label = "cpu";
				ethernet = <&cp0_eth0>;
			};

To illustrate how odd the situation is, I am able to follow the phandle
to the CPU port and find a comment that it's a 88E6393X, and that the
CPU port uses managed = "in-band-status":

&cp0_eth0 {
	/* This port is connected to 88E6393X switch */
	status = "okay";
	phy-mode = "10gbase-r";
	managed = "in-band-status";
	phys = <&cp0_comphy4 0>;
};

Open question: is it sane to even do what we're trying here, to create a
fixed-link for port@a (which makes the phylink instance use MLO_AN_FIXED)
when &cp0_eth0 uses MLO_AN_INBAND? My simple mind thinks that if all
involved drivers were to behave correctly and not have bugs that cancel
out other bugs, the above device tree shouldn't work. The host port
would expect a clause 37 base page exchange to take place, the switch
wouldn't send any in-band information, and the SERDES lane would never
transition to data mode. To fix the above, we'd really need to chase the
"ethernet" phandle and attempt to mimic what the DSA master did. This is
indeed logic that never existed before, and I don't particularly feel
like adding it. How far do we want to go? It seems like never-ending
insanity the more I look at it.

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 01:44:47AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> I really wish there was a ready-made helper for validating phylink's
> OF node; I mentioned this already, it needs to cater for all of
> fixed-link/phy-handle/managed/sfp.

While I was going to expand on this point and state that DSA doesn't
currently instantiate phylink for this OF node:

			port@9 {
				reg = <0x9>;
				label = "cpu";
				ethernet = <&eth1>;
				phy-mode = "2500base-x";
				managed = "in-band-status";
			};

I was proven wrong. Today I learned that of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns
true if the "managed" property exists and its value differs from "auto".
So in the above case, of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns true, hmmm.



On the other hand I found arm64/boot/dts/marvell/cn9130-crb.dtsi, where
the switch, a "marvell,mv88e6190"-compatible (can't determine going just
by that what it actually is) has this:

			port@a {
				reg = <10>;
				label = "cpu";
				ethernet = <&cp0_eth0>;
			};

To illustrate how odd the situation is, I am able to follow the phandle
to the CPU port and find a comment that it's a 88E6393X, and that the
CPU port uses managed = "in-band-status":

&cp0_eth0 {
	/* This port is connected to 88E6393X switch */
	status = "okay";
	phy-mode = "10gbase-r";
	managed = "in-band-status";
	phys = <&cp0_comphy4 0>;
};

Open question: is it sane to even do what we're trying here, to create a
fixed-link for port@a (which makes the phylink instance use MLO_AN_FIXED)
when &cp0_eth0 uses MLO_AN_INBAND? My simple mind thinks that if all
involved drivers were to behave correctly and not have bugs that cancel
out other bugs, the above device tree shouldn't work. The host port
would expect a clause 37 base page exchange to take place, the switch
wouldn't send any in-band information, and the SERDES lane would never
transition to data mode. To fix the above, we'd really need to chase the
"ethernet" phandle and attempt to mimic what the DSA master did. This is
indeed logic that never existed before, and I don't particularly feel
like adding it. How far do we want to go? It seems like never-ending
insanity the more I look at it.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Andrew Lunn]

> On the other hand I found arm64/boot/dts/marvell/cn9130-crb.dtsi, where
> the switch, a "marvell,mv88e6190"-compatible (can't determine going just
> by that what it actually is) has this:
> 
> 			port@a {
> 				reg = <10>;
> 				label = "cpu";
> 				ethernet = <&cp0_eth0>;
> 			};

Both CPU and DSA ports default to their maximum speed, if nothing else
is specified. If this is a 6393X, port 10 can do 10Gbps, and that is
how the port will be configured by the driver. It is undefined how it
actually implement this maximum speed, if there are multiple choices,
if in band is enabled or not etc. This is historical, the first
mv88e6xxx devices had a mixture of Fast and 1G ethernet interfaces,
and it was simply to choosing between MII and GMII. The platform data
at that time had no way to express link information, and this simple
default mechanism was enough to get boards of the time working.

> To illustrate how odd the situation is, I am able to follow the phandle
> to the CPU port and find a comment that it's a 88E6393X, and that the
> CPU port uses managed = "in-band-status":
> 
> &cp0_eth0 {
> 	/* This port is connected to 88E6393X switch */
> 	status = "okay";
> 	phy-mode = "10gbase-r";
> 	managed = "in-band-status";
> 	phys = <&cp0_comphy4 0>;
> };
> 
> Open question: is it sane to even do what we're trying here, to create a
> fixed-link for port@a (which makes the phylink instance use MLO_AN_FIXED)
> when &cp0_eth0 uses MLO_AN_INBAND? My simple mind thinks that if all
> involved drivers were to behave correctly

Define 'correctly', given that some of these drivers and devices have
been around much longer than device tree, etc.

     Andrew

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Andrew Lunn]

> On the other hand I found arm64/boot/dts/marvell/cn9130-crb.dtsi, where
> the switch, a "marvell,mv88e6190"-compatible (can't determine going just
> by that what it actually is) has this:
> 
> 			port@a {
> 				reg = <10>;
> 				label = "cpu";
> 				ethernet = <&cp0_eth0>;
> 			};

Both CPU and DSA ports default to their maximum speed, if nothing else
is specified. If this is a 6393X, port 10 can do 10Gbps, and that is
how the port will be configured by the driver. It is undefined how it
actually implement this maximum speed, if there are multiple choices,
if in band is enabled or not etc. This is historical, the first
mv88e6xxx devices had a mixture of Fast and 1G ethernet interfaces,
and it was simply to choosing between MII and GMII. The platform data
at that time had no way to express link information, and this simple
default mechanism was enough to get boards of the time working.

> To illustrate how odd the situation is, I am able to follow the phandle
> to the CPU port and find a comment that it's a 88E6393X, and that the
> CPU port uses managed = "in-band-status":
> 
> &cp0_eth0 {
> 	/* This port is connected to 88E6393X switch */
> 	status = "okay";
> 	phy-mode = "10gbase-r";
> 	managed = "in-band-status";
> 	phys = <&cp0_comphy4 0>;
> };
> 
> Open question: is it sane to even do what we're trying here, to create a
> fixed-link for port@a (which makes the phylink instance use MLO_AN_FIXED)
> when &cp0_eth0 uses MLO_AN_INBAND? My simple mind thinks that if all
> involved drivers were to behave correctly

Define 'correctly', given that some of these drivers and devices have
been around much longer than device tree, etc.

     Andrew


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 04:46:18PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 01:44:47AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > I really wish there was a ready-made helper for validating phylink's
> > OF node; I mentioned this already, it needs to cater for all of
> > fixed-link/phy-handle/managed/sfp.
> 
> While I was going to expand on this point and state that DSA doesn't
> currently instantiate phylink for this OF node:
> 
> 			port@9 {
> 				reg = <0x9>;
> 				label = "cpu";
> 				ethernet = <&eth1>;
> 				phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> 				managed = "in-band-status";
> 			};
> 
> I was proven wrong. Today I learned that of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns
> true if the "managed" property exists and its value differs from "auto".
> So in the above case, of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns true, hmmm.

Yes, which is why I said on July 7th:

"So I also don't see a problem - sja1105 rejects DTs that fail to
describe a port using at least one of a phy-handle, a fixed-link, or
a managed in-band link, and I don't think it needs to do further
validation, certainly not for the phy describing properties that
the kernel has chosen to deprecate for new implementations."

I had assumed you knew of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns true in this
case. Do you now see that sja1105's validation is close enough
(except for the legacy phy phandle properties which we don't care
about), and thus do we finally have agreement on this point?

> On the other hand I found arm64/boot/dts/marvell/cn9130-crb.dtsi, where
> the switch, a "marvell,mv88e6190"-compatible (can't determine going just
> by that what it actually is) has this:
> 
> 			port@a {
> 				reg = <10>;
> 				label = "cpu";
> 				ethernet = <&cp0_eth0>;
> 			};

Port 10 on 88E6393X supports 10GBASE-R, and maybe one day someone will
get around to implementing USXGMII. This description relies upon this
defaulting behaviour - as Andrew has described, this has been entirely
normal behaviour with mv88e6xxx.

> To illustrate how odd the situation is, I am able to follow the phandle
> to the CPU port and find a comment that it's a 88E6393X, and that the
> CPU port uses managed = "in-band-status":
> 
> &cp0_eth0 {
> 	/* This port is connected to 88E6393X switch */
> 	status = "okay";
> 	phy-mode = "10gbase-r";
> 	managed = "in-band-status";
> 	phys = <&cp0_comphy4 0>;
> };

10GBASE-R has no in-band signalling per-se, so the only effect this has
on the phylink instance on the CPU side is to read the status from the
PCS as it does for any other in-band mode. In the case of 10GBASE-R, the
only retrievable parameter is the link up/down status. This is no
different from a 10GBASE-R based fibre link in that regard.

A fixed link on the other hand would not read status from the PCS but
would assume that the link is always up.

> Open question: is it sane to even do what we're trying here, to create a
> fixed-link for port@a (which makes the phylink instance use MLO_AN_FIXED)
> when &cp0_eth0 uses MLO_AN_INBAND? My simple mind thinks that if all
> involved drivers were to behave correctly and not have bugs that cancel
> out other bugs, the above device tree shouldn't work. The host port
> would expect a clause 37 base page exchange to take place, the switch
> wouldn't send any in-band information, and the SERDES lane would never
> transition to data mode. To fix the above, we'd really need to chase the
> "ethernet" phandle and attempt to mimic what the DSA master did. This is
> indeed logic that never existed before, and I don't particularly feel
> like adding it. How far do we want to go? It seems like never-ending
> insanity the more I look at it.

10GBASE-R doesn't support clause 37 AN. 10GBASE-KR does support
inband AN, but it's a different clause and different format.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 04:46:18PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 01:44:47AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > I really wish there was a ready-made helper for validating phylink's
> > OF node; I mentioned this already, it needs to cater for all of
> > fixed-link/phy-handle/managed/sfp.
> 
> While I was going to expand on this point and state that DSA doesn't
> currently instantiate phylink for this OF node:
> 
> 			port@9 {
> 				reg = <0x9>;
> 				label = "cpu";
> 				ethernet = <&eth1>;
> 				phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> 				managed = "in-band-status";
> 			};
> 
> I was proven wrong. Today I learned that of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns
> true if the "managed" property exists and its value differs from "auto".
> So in the above case, of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns true, hmmm.

Yes, which is why I said on July 7th:

"So I also don't see a problem - sja1105 rejects DTs that fail to
describe a port using at least one of a phy-handle, a fixed-link, or
a managed in-band link, and I don't think it needs to do further
validation, certainly not for the phy describing properties that
the kernel has chosen to deprecate for new implementations."

I had assumed you knew of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns true in this
case. Do you now see that sja1105's validation is close enough
(except for the legacy phy phandle properties which we don't care
about), and thus do we finally have agreement on this point?

> On the other hand I found arm64/boot/dts/marvell/cn9130-crb.dtsi, where
> the switch, a "marvell,mv88e6190"-compatible (can't determine going just
> by that what it actually is) has this:
> 
> 			port@a {
> 				reg = <10>;
> 				label = "cpu";
> 				ethernet = <&cp0_eth0>;
> 			};

Port 10 on 88E6393X supports 10GBASE-R, and maybe one day someone will
get around to implementing USXGMII. This description relies upon this
defaulting behaviour - as Andrew has described, this has been entirely
normal behaviour with mv88e6xxx.

> To illustrate how odd the situation is, I am able to follow the phandle
> to the CPU port and find a comment that it's a 88E6393X, and that the
> CPU port uses managed = "in-band-status":
> 
> &cp0_eth0 {
> 	/* This port is connected to 88E6393X switch */
> 	status = "okay";
> 	phy-mode = "10gbase-r";
> 	managed = "in-band-status";
> 	phys = <&cp0_comphy4 0>;
> };

10GBASE-R has no in-band signalling per-se, so the only effect this has
on the phylink instance on the CPU side is to read the status from the
PCS as it does for any other in-band mode. In the case of 10GBASE-R, the
only retrievable parameter is the link up/down status. This is no
different from a 10GBASE-R based fibre link in that regard.

A fixed link on the other hand would not read status from the PCS but
would assume that the link is always up.

> Open question: is it sane to even do what we're trying here, to create a
> fixed-link for port@a (which makes the phylink instance use MLO_AN_FIXED)
> when &cp0_eth0 uses MLO_AN_INBAND? My simple mind thinks that if all
> involved drivers were to behave correctly and not have bugs that cancel
> out other bugs, the above device tree shouldn't work. The host port
> would expect a clause 37 base page exchange to take place, the switch
> wouldn't send any in-band information, and the SERDES lane would never
> transition to data mode. To fix the above, we'd really need to chase the
> "ethernet" phandle and attempt to mimic what the DSA master did. This is
> indeed logic that never existed before, and I don't particularly feel
> like adding it. How far do we want to go? It seems like never-ending
> insanity the more I look at it.

10GBASE-R doesn't support clause 37 AN. 10GBASE-KR does support
inband AN, but it's a different clause and different format.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 03:54:15PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> Yes, which is why I said on July 7th:
> 
> "So I also don't see a problem - sja1105 rejects DTs that fail to
> describe a port using at least one of a phy-handle, a fixed-link, or
> a managed in-band link, and I don't think it needs to do further
> validation, certainly not for the phy describing properties that
> the kernel has chosen to deprecate for new implementations."
> 
> I had assumed you knew of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns true in this
> case. Do you now see that sja1105's validation is close enough
> (except for the legacy phy phandle properties which we don't care
> about),

This is why your comment struck me as odd for mentioning managed in-band.

> and thus do we finally have agreement on this point?

Yes we do.

> > On the other hand I found arm64/boot/dts/marvell/cn9130-crb.dtsi, where
> > the switch, a "marvell,mv88e6190"-compatible (can't determine going just
> > by that what it actually is) has this:
> > 
> > 			port@a {
> > 				reg = <10>;
> > 				label = "cpu";
> > 				ethernet = <&cp0_eth0>;
> > 			};
> 
> Port 10 on 88E6393X supports 10GBASE-R, and maybe one day someone will
> get around to implementing USXGMII. This description relies upon this
> defaulting behaviour - as Andrew has described, this has been entirely
> normal behaviour with mv88e6xxx.
> 
> > To illustrate how odd the situation is, I am able to follow the phandle
> > to the CPU port and find a comment that it's a 88E6393X, and that the
> > CPU port uses managed = "in-band-status":
> > 
> > &cp0_eth0 {
> > 	/* This port is connected to 88E6393X switch */
> > 	status = "okay";
> > 	phy-mode = "10gbase-r";
> > 	managed = "in-band-status";
> > 	phys = <&cp0_comphy4 0>;
> > };
> 
> 10GBASE-R has no in-band signalling per-se, so the only effect this has
> on the phylink instance on the CPU side is to read the status from the
> PCS as it does for any other in-band mode. In the case of 10GBASE-R, the
> only retrievable parameter is the link up/down status. This is no
> different from a 10GBASE-R based fibre link in that regard.

Is there any formal definition for what managed = "in-band-status"
actually means? Is it context-specific depending on phy-mode?
In the case of SGMII, would it also mean that clause 37 exchange would
also take place (and its absence would mean it wouldn't), or does it
mean just that, that the driver should read the status from the PCS?

> A fixed link on the other hand would not read status from the PCS but
> would assume that the link is always up.
> 
> > Open question: is it sane to even do what we're trying here, to create a
> > fixed-link for port@a (which makes the phylink instance use MLO_AN_FIXED)
> > when &cp0_eth0 uses MLO_AN_INBAND? My simple mind thinks that if all
> > involved drivers were to behave correctly and not have bugs that cancel
> > out other bugs, the above device tree shouldn't work. The host port
> > would expect a clause 37 base page exchange to take place, the switch
> > wouldn't send any in-band information, and the SERDES lane would never
> > transition to data mode. To fix the above, we'd really need to chase the
> > "ethernet" phandle and attempt to mimic what the DSA master did. This is
> > indeed logic that never existed before, and I don't particularly feel
> > like adding it. How far do we want to go? It seems like never-ending
> > insanity the more I look at it.
> 
> 10GBASE-R doesn't support clause 37 AN. 10GBASE-KR does support
> inband AN, but it's a different clause and different format.

I thought it wouldn't, but then I was led to believe, after seeing it
here, that just the hardware I'm working with doesn't. How about
2500base-x in Marvell, is there any base page exchange, or is this still
only about retrieving link status from the PCS?

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 03:54:15PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> Yes, which is why I said on July 7th:
> 
> "So I also don't see a problem - sja1105 rejects DTs that fail to
> describe a port using at least one of a phy-handle, a fixed-link, or
> a managed in-band link, and I don't think it needs to do further
> validation, certainly not for the phy describing properties that
> the kernel has chosen to deprecate for new implementations."
> 
> I had assumed you knew of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns true in this
> case. Do you now see that sja1105's validation is close enough
> (except for the legacy phy phandle properties which we don't care
> about),

This is why your comment struck me as odd for mentioning managed in-band.

> and thus do we finally have agreement on this point?

Yes we do.

> > On the other hand I found arm64/boot/dts/marvell/cn9130-crb.dtsi, where
> > the switch, a "marvell,mv88e6190"-compatible (can't determine going just
> > by that what it actually is) has this:
> > 
> > 			port@a {
> > 				reg = <10>;
> > 				label = "cpu";
> > 				ethernet = <&cp0_eth0>;
> > 			};
> 
> Port 10 on 88E6393X supports 10GBASE-R, and maybe one day someone will
> get around to implementing USXGMII. This description relies upon this
> defaulting behaviour - as Andrew has described, this has been entirely
> normal behaviour with mv88e6xxx.
> 
> > To illustrate how odd the situation is, I am able to follow the phandle
> > to the CPU port and find a comment that it's a 88E6393X, and that the
> > CPU port uses managed = "in-band-status":
> > 
> > &cp0_eth0 {
> > 	/* This port is connected to 88E6393X switch */
> > 	status = "okay";
> > 	phy-mode = "10gbase-r";
> > 	managed = "in-band-status";
> > 	phys = <&cp0_comphy4 0>;
> > };
> 
> 10GBASE-R has no in-band signalling per-se, so the only effect this has
> on the phylink instance on the CPU side is to read the status from the
> PCS as it does for any other in-band mode. In the case of 10GBASE-R, the
> only retrievable parameter is the link up/down status. This is no
> different from a 10GBASE-R based fibre link in that regard.

Is there any formal definition for what managed = "in-band-status"
actually means? Is it context-specific depending on phy-mode?
In the case of SGMII, would it also mean that clause 37 exchange would
also take place (and its absence would mean it wouldn't), or does it
mean just that, that the driver should read the status from the PCS?

> A fixed link on the other hand would not read status from the PCS but
> would assume that the link is always up.
> 
> > Open question: is it sane to even do what we're trying here, to create a
> > fixed-link for port@a (which makes the phylink instance use MLO_AN_FIXED)
> > when &cp0_eth0 uses MLO_AN_INBAND? My simple mind thinks that if all
> > involved drivers were to behave correctly and not have bugs that cancel
> > out other bugs, the above device tree shouldn't work. The host port
> > would expect a clause 37 base page exchange to take place, the switch
> > wouldn't send any in-band information, and the SERDES lane would never
> > transition to data mode. To fix the above, we'd really need to chase the
> > "ethernet" phandle and attempt to mimic what the DSA master did. This is
> > indeed logic that never existed before, and I don't particularly feel
> > like adding it. How far do we want to go? It seems like never-ending
> > insanity the more I look at it.
> 
> 10GBASE-R doesn't support clause 37 AN. 10GBASE-KR does support
> inband AN, but it's a different clause and different format.

I thought it wouldn't, but then I was led to believe, after seeing it
here, that just the hardware I'm working with doesn't. How about
2500base-x in Marvell, is there any base page exchange, or is this still
only about retrieving link status from the PCS?

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Marek Behún]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 18:15:33 +0300
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 03:54:15PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > Yes, which is why I said on July 7th:
> > 
> > "So I also don't see a problem - sja1105 rejects DTs that fail to
> > describe a port using at least one of a phy-handle, a fixed-link, or
> > a managed in-band link, and I don't think it needs to do further
> > validation, certainly not for the phy describing properties that
> > the kernel has chosen to deprecate for new implementations."
> > 
> > I had assumed you knew of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns true in this
> > case. Do you now see that sja1105's validation is close enough
> > (except for the legacy phy phandle properties which we don't care
> > about),  
> 
> This is why your comment struck me as odd for mentioning managed in-band.
> 
> > and thus do we finally have agreement on this point?  
> 
> Yes we do.
> 
> > > On the other hand I found arm64/boot/dts/marvell/cn9130-crb.dtsi, where
> > > the switch, a "marvell,mv88e6190"-compatible (can't determine going just
> > > by that what it actually is) has this:
> > > 
> > > 			port@a {
> > > 				reg = <10>;
> > > 				label = "cpu";
> > > 				ethernet = <&cp0_eth0>;
> > > 			};  
> > 
> > Port 10 on 88E6393X supports 10GBASE-R, and maybe one day someone will
> > get around to implementing USXGMII. This description relies upon this
> > defaulting behaviour - as Andrew has described, this has been entirely
> > normal behaviour with mv88e6xxx.
> >   
> > > To illustrate how odd the situation is, I am able to follow the phandle
> > > to the CPU port and find a comment that it's a 88E6393X, and that the
> > > CPU port uses managed = "in-band-status":
> > > 
> > > &cp0_eth0 {
> > > 	/* This port is connected to 88E6393X switch */
> > > 	status = "okay";
> > > 	phy-mode = "10gbase-r";
> > > 	managed = "in-band-status";
> > > 	phys = <&cp0_comphy4 0>;
> > > };  
> > 
> > 10GBASE-R has no in-band signalling per-se, so the only effect this has
> > on the phylink instance on the CPU side is to read the status from the
> > PCS as it does for any other in-band mode. In the case of 10GBASE-R, the
> > only retrievable parameter is the link up/down status. This is no
> > different from a 10GBASE-R based fibre link in that regard.  
> 
> Is there any formal definition for what managed = "in-band-status"
> actually means? Is it context-specific depending on phy-mode?
> In the case of SGMII, would it also mean that clause 37 exchange would
> also take place (and its absence would mean it wouldn't), or does it
> mean just that, that the driver should read the status from the PCS?
> 
> > A fixed link on the other hand would not read status from the PCS but
> > would assume that the link is always up.
> >   
> > > Open question: is it sane to even do what we're trying here, to create a
> > > fixed-link for port@a (which makes the phylink instance use MLO_AN_FIXED)
> > > when &cp0_eth0 uses MLO_AN_INBAND? My simple mind thinks that if all
> > > involved drivers were to behave correctly and not have bugs that cancel
> > > out other bugs, the above device tree shouldn't work. The host port
> > > would expect a clause 37 base page exchange to take place, the switch
> > > wouldn't send any in-band information, and the SERDES lane would never
> > > transition to data mode. To fix the above, we'd really need to chase the
> > > "ethernet" phandle and attempt to mimic what the DSA master did. This is
> > > indeed logic that never existed before, and I don't particularly feel
> > > like adding it. How far do we want to go? It seems like never-ending
> > > insanity the more I look at it.  
> > 
> > 10GBASE-R doesn't support clause 37 AN. 10GBASE-KR does support
> > inband AN, but it's a different clause and different format.  
> 
> I thought it wouldn't, but then I was led to believe, after seeing it
> here, that just the hardware I'm working with doesn't. How about
> 2500base-x in Marvell, is there any base page exchange, or is this still
> only about retrieving link status from the PCS?

Marvell documentation says that 2500base-x does not implement inband
AN.

But when it was first implemented, for some reason it was thought that
2500base-x is just 1000base-x at 2.5x speed, and 1000base-x does
support inband AN. Also it worked during tests for both switches and
SOC NICs, so it was enabled.

At the time 2500base-x was not standardized. Now 2500base-x is
stanradrized, and the standard says that 2500base-x does not support
clause 37 AN. I guess this is because where it is used, it is intended
to work with clause 73 AN somehow.

And then came 6373X switch, which didn't support clause 37 inband AN in
2500base-x mode (the AN reigster returned 0xffff or something when
2500base-x CMODE was set). Maybe 6373X finally supports clause 73 AN
(I don't know, but I don't think so) and that is the reason they now
forbid clause 37 AN in HW in 2500base-x.

But the problem is that by this time there is software out there then
expects 2500base-x to have clause 37 AN enabled. Indeed a passive SFP
cable did not work between MOX' SFP port and CN9130-CRB's SFP port
when used with Peridot (6190), if C37 AN was disabled on 6393x and left
enabled on Peridot.

I managed to work out how to enable C37 AN on 6393x:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=163000dbc772c1eae9bdfe7c8fe30155db1efd74

So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.

I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?

:)

Marek

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Marek Behún]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 18:15:33 +0300
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 03:54:15PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > Yes, which is why I said on July 7th:
> > 
> > "So I also don't see a problem - sja1105 rejects DTs that fail to
> > describe a port using at least one of a phy-handle, a fixed-link, or
> > a managed in-band link, and I don't think it needs to do further
> > validation, certainly not for the phy describing properties that
> > the kernel has chosen to deprecate for new implementations."
> > 
> > I had assumed you knew of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns true in this
> > case. Do you now see that sja1105's validation is close enough
> > (except for the legacy phy phandle properties which we don't care
> > about),  
> 
> This is why your comment struck me as odd for mentioning managed in-band.
> 
> > and thus do we finally have agreement on this point?  
> 
> Yes we do.
> 
> > > On the other hand I found arm64/boot/dts/marvell/cn9130-crb.dtsi, where
> > > the switch, a "marvell,mv88e6190"-compatible (can't determine going just
> > > by that what it actually is) has this:
> > > 
> > > 			port@a {
> > > 				reg = <10>;
> > > 				label = "cpu";
> > > 				ethernet = <&cp0_eth0>;
> > > 			};  
> > 
> > Port 10 on 88E6393X supports 10GBASE-R, and maybe one day someone will
> > get around to implementing USXGMII. This description relies upon this
> > defaulting behaviour - as Andrew has described, this has been entirely
> > normal behaviour with mv88e6xxx.
> >   
> > > To illustrate how odd the situation is, I am able to follow the phandle
> > > to the CPU port and find a comment that it's a 88E6393X, and that the
> > > CPU port uses managed = "in-band-status":
> > > 
> > > &cp0_eth0 {
> > > 	/* This port is connected to 88E6393X switch */
> > > 	status = "okay";
> > > 	phy-mode = "10gbase-r";
> > > 	managed = "in-band-status";
> > > 	phys = <&cp0_comphy4 0>;
> > > };  
> > 
> > 10GBASE-R has no in-band signalling per-se, so the only effect this has
> > on the phylink instance on the CPU side is to read the status from the
> > PCS as it does for any other in-band mode. In the case of 10GBASE-R, the
> > only retrievable parameter is the link up/down status. This is no
> > different from a 10GBASE-R based fibre link in that regard.  
> 
> Is there any formal definition for what managed = "in-band-status"
> actually means? Is it context-specific depending on phy-mode?
> In the case of SGMII, would it also mean that clause 37 exchange would
> also take place (and its absence would mean it wouldn't), or does it
> mean just that, that the driver should read the status from the PCS?
> 
> > A fixed link on the other hand would not read status from the PCS but
> > would assume that the link is always up.
> >   
> > > Open question: is it sane to even do what we're trying here, to create a
> > > fixed-link for port@a (which makes the phylink instance use MLO_AN_FIXED)
> > > when &cp0_eth0 uses MLO_AN_INBAND? My simple mind thinks that if all
> > > involved drivers were to behave correctly and not have bugs that cancel
> > > out other bugs, the above device tree shouldn't work. The host port
> > > would expect a clause 37 base page exchange to take place, the switch
> > > wouldn't send any in-band information, and the SERDES lane would never
> > > transition to data mode. To fix the above, we'd really need to chase the
> > > "ethernet" phandle and attempt to mimic what the DSA master did. This is
> > > indeed logic that never existed before, and I don't particularly feel
> > > like adding it. How far do we want to go? It seems like never-ending
> > > insanity the more I look at it.  
> > 
> > 10GBASE-R doesn't support clause 37 AN. 10GBASE-KR does support
> > inband AN, but it's a different clause and different format.  
> 
> I thought it wouldn't, but then I was led to believe, after seeing it
> here, that just the hardware I'm working with doesn't. How about
> 2500base-x in Marvell, is there any base page exchange, or is this still
> only about retrieving link status from the PCS?

Marvell documentation says that 2500base-x does not implement inband
AN.

But when it was first implemented, for some reason it was thought that
2500base-x is just 1000base-x at 2.5x speed, and 1000base-x does
support inband AN. Also it worked during tests for both switches and
SOC NICs, so it was enabled.

At the time 2500base-x was not standardized. Now 2500base-x is
stanradrized, and the standard says that 2500base-x does not support
clause 37 AN. I guess this is because where it is used, it is intended
to work with clause 73 AN somehow.

And then came 6373X switch, which didn't support clause 37 inband AN in
2500base-x mode (the AN reigster returned 0xffff or something when
2500base-x CMODE was set). Maybe 6373X finally supports clause 73 AN
(I don't know, but I don't think so) and that is the reason they now
forbid clause 37 AN in HW in 2500base-x.

But the problem is that by this time there is software out there then
expects 2500base-x to have clause 37 AN enabled. Indeed a passive SFP
cable did not work between MOX' SFP port and CN9130-CRB's SFP port
when used with Peridot (6190), if C37 AN was disabled on 6393x and left
enabled on Peridot.

I managed to work out how to enable C37 AN on 6393x:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=163000dbc772c1eae9bdfe7c8fe30155db1efd74

So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.

I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?

:)

Marek

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 07:21:45PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 18:15:33 +0300
> Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 03:54:15PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > Yes, which is why I said on July 7th:
> > > 
> > > "So I also don't see a problem - sja1105 rejects DTs that fail to
> > > describe a port using at least one of a phy-handle, a fixed-link, or
> > > a managed in-band link, and I don't think it needs to do further
> > > validation, certainly not for the phy describing properties that
> > > the kernel has chosen to deprecate for new implementations."
> > > 
> > > I had assumed you knew of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns true in this
> > > case. Do you now see that sja1105's validation is close enough
> > > (except for the legacy phy phandle properties which we don't care
> > > about),  
> > 
> > This is why your comment struck me as odd for mentioning managed in-band.
> > 
> > > and thus do we finally have agreement on this point?  
> > 
> > Yes we do.
> > 
> > > > On the other hand I found arm64/boot/dts/marvell/cn9130-crb.dtsi, where
> > > > the switch, a "marvell,mv88e6190"-compatible (can't determine going just
> > > > by that what it actually is) has this:
> > > > 
> > > > 			port@a {
> > > > 				reg = <10>;
> > > > 				label = "cpu";
> > > > 				ethernet = <&cp0_eth0>;
> > > > 			};  
> > > 
> > > Port 10 on 88E6393X supports 10GBASE-R, and maybe one day someone will
> > > get around to implementing USXGMII. This description relies upon this
> > > defaulting behaviour - as Andrew has described, this has been entirely
> > > normal behaviour with mv88e6xxx.
> > >   
> > > > To illustrate how odd the situation is, I am able to follow the phandle
> > > > to the CPU port and find a comment that it's a 88E6393X, and that the
> > > > CPU port uses managed = "in-band-status":
> > > > 
> > > > &cp0_eth0 {
> > > > 	/* This port is connected to 88E6393X switch */
> > > > 	status = "okay";
> > > > 	phy-mode = "10gbase-r";
> > > > 	managed = "in-band-status";
> > > > 	phys = <&cp0_comphy4 0>;
> > > > };  
> > > 
> > > 10GBASE-R has no in-band signalling per-se, so the only effect this has
> > > on the phylink instance on the CPU side is to read the status from the
> > > PCS as it does for any other in-band mode. In the case of 10GBASE-R, the
> > > only retrievable parameter is the link up/down status. This is no
> > > different from a 10GBASE-R based fibre link in that regard.  
> > 
> > Is there any formal definition for what managed = "in-band-status"
> > actually means? Is it context-specific depending on phy-mode?
> > In the case of SGMII, would it also mean that clause 37 exchange would
> > also take place (and its absence would mean it wouldn't), or does it
> > mean just that, that the driver should read the status from the PCS?
> > 
> > > A fixed link on the other hand would not read status from the PCS but
> > > would assume that the link is always up.
> > >   
> > > > Open question: is it sane to even do what we're trying here, to create a
> > > > fixed-link for port@a (which makes the phylink instance use MLO_AN_FIXED)
> > > > when &cp0_eth0 uses MLO_AN_INBAND? My simple mind thinks that if all
> > > > involved drivers were to behave correctly and not have bugs that cancel
> > > > out other bugs, the above device tree shouldn't work. The host port
> > > > would expect a clause 37 base page exchange to take place, the switch
> > > > wouldn't send any in-band information, and the SERDES lane would never
> > > > transition to data mode. To fix the above, we'd really need to chase the
> > > > "ethernet" phandle and attempt to mimic what the DSA master did. This is
> > > > indeed logic that never existed before, and I don't particularly feel
> > > > like adding it. How far do we want to go? It seems like never-ending
> > > > insanity the more I look at it.  
> > > 
> > > 10GBASE-R doesn't support clause 37 AN. 10GBASE-KR does support
> > > inband AN, but it's a different clause and different format.  
> > 
> > I thought it wouldn't, but then I was led to believe, after seeing it
> > here, that just the hardware I'm working with doesn't. How about
> > 2500base-x in Marvell, is there any base page exchange, or is this still
> > only about retrieving link status from the PCS?
> 
> Marvell documentation says that 2500base-x does not implement inband
> AN.
> 
> But when it was first implemented, for some reason it was thought that
> 2500base-x is just 1000base-x at 2.5x speed, and 1000base-x does
> support inband AN. Also it worked during tests for both switches and
> SOC NICs, so it was enabled.

It comes from Marvell NETA and PP2 documentation, which clearly states
that when a port is operating in 1000base-X mode, autonegotiation must
be enabled. It then implements 2500base-X by up-clocking the Serdes by
2.5x.

Therefore, to get 2500base-X using 1000base-X mode on these devices, it
follows that autonegotiation must be enabled. Since phylink's origins
are for these devices, and 2500base-X was not standardised at the time,
and there was no documentation online to describe what 2500base-X
actually was, a decision had to be made, and the logical thing to do
at that point was to support AN, especially as one can use it to
negotiate pause modes.

Note that NETA and PP2 have never supported half-duplex on 1G or 2.5G
speeds, so the clause 37 negotiation has only ever dealt with pause
modes, and again, it seemed logical and sensible at the time to allow
pause modes to still be negotiated at 2500base-X speed. Especially as
one can use FibreChannel SFPs to link two machines together using
2500base-X in the same way that you can link them together using
1000base-X.

Had manufacturers been more open with their documentation, and had they
used a common term, maybe this could have been different, but in an
information vacuum, decisions have to be made, even if they turn out to
be wrong later on - but we have to live with those consequences.

As I've stated before, I know I'm not alone in this - there are SFPs
that support 2500base-X (particularly GPON SFPs) that appear to expect
caluse 37 AN on 2500base-X, since the Armada 3700 uDPU product is
designed to work with them and it was a requirement to have a working
2.5G connection between the NETA interfaces and the GPON SFPs. And as
I say, NETA wants AN enabled.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 07:21:45PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 18:15:33 +0300
> Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 03:54:15PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > Yes, which is why I said on July 7th:
> > > 
> > > "So I also don't see a problem - sja1105 rejects DTs that fail to
> > > describe a port using at least one of a phy-handle, a fixed-link, or
> > > a managed in-band link, and I don't think it needs to do further
> > > validation, certainly not for the phy describing properties that
> > > the kernel has chosen to deprecate for new implementations."
> > > 
> > > I had assumed you knew of_phy_is_fixed_link() returns true in this
> > > case. Do you now see that sja1105's validation is close enough
> > > (except for the legacy phy phandle properties which we don't care
> > > about),  
> > 
> > This is why your comment struck me as odd for mentioning managed in-band.
> > 
> > > and thus do we finally have agreement on this point?  
> > 
> > Yes we do.
> > 
> > > > On the other hand I found arm64/boot/dts/marvell/cn9130-crb.dtsi, where
> > > > the switch, a "marvell,mv88e6190"-compatible (can't determine going just
> > > > by that what it actually is) has this:
> > > > 
> > > > 			port@a {
> > > > 				reg = <10>;
> > > > 				label = "cpu";
> > > > 				ethernet = <&cp0_eth0>;
> > > > 			};  
> > > 
> > > Port 10 on 88E6393X supports 10GBASE-R, and maybe one day someone will
> > > get around to implementing USXGMII. This description relies upon this
> > > defaulting behaviour - as Andrew has described, this has been entirely
> > > normal behaviour with mv88e6xxx.
> > >   
> > > > To illustrate how odd the situation is, I am able to follow the phandle
> > > > to the CPU port and find a comment that it's a 88E6393X, and that the
> > > > CPU port uses managed = "in-band-status":
> > > > 
> > > > &cp0_eth0 {
> > > > 	/* This port is connected to 88E6393X switch */
> > > > 	status = "okay";
> > > > 	phy-mode = "10gbase-r";
> > > > 	managed = "in-band-status";
> > > > 	phys = <&cp0_comphy4 0>;
> > > > };  
> > > 
> > > 10GBASE-R has no in-band signalling per-se, so the only effect this has
> > > on the phylink instance on the CPU side is to read the status from the
> > > PCS as it does for any other in-band mode. In the case of 10GBASE-R, the
> > > only retrievable parameter is the link up/down status. This is no
> > > different from a 10GBASE-R based fibre link in that regard.  
> > 
> > Is there any formal definition for what managed = "in-band-status"
> > actually means? Is it context-specific depending on phy-mode?
> > In the case of SGMII, would it also mean that clause 37 exchange would
> > also take place (and its absence would mean it wouldn't), or does it
> > mean just that, that the driver should read the status from the PCS?
> > 
> > > A fixed link on the other hand would not read status from the PCS but
> > > would assume that the link is always up.
> > >   
> > > > Open question: is it sane to even do what we're trying here, to create a
> > > > fixed-link for port@a (which makes the phylink instance use MLO_AN_FIXED)
> > > > when &cp0_eth0 uses MLO_AN_INBAND? My simple mind thinks that if all
> > > > involved drivers were to behave correctly and not have bugs that cancel
> > > > out other bugs, the above device tree shouldn't work. The host port
> > > > would expect a clause 37 base page exchange to take place, the switch
> > > > wouldn't send any in-band information, and the SERDES lane would never
> > > > transition to data mode. To fix the above, we'd really need to chase the
> > > > "ethernet" phandle and attempt to mimic what the DSA master did. This is
> > > > indeed logic that never existed before, and I don't particularly feel
> > > > like adding it. How far do we want to go? It seems like never-ending
> > > > insanity the more I look at it.  
> > > 
> > > 10GBASE-R doesn't support clause 37 AN. 10GBASE-KR does support
> > > inband AN, but it's a different clause and different format.  
> > 
> > I thought it wouldn't, but then I was led to believe, after seeing it
> > here, that just the hardware I'm working with doesn't. How about
> > 2500base-x in Marvell, is there any base page exchange, or is this still
> > only about retrieving link status from the PCS?
> 
> Marvell documentation says that 2500base-x does not implement inband
> AN.
> 
> But when it was first implemented, for some reason it was thought that
> 2500base-x is just 1000base-x at 2.5x speed, and 1000base-x does
> support inband AN. Also it worked during tests for both switches and
> SOC NICs, so it was enabled.

It comes from Marvell NETA and PP2 documentation, which clearly states
that when a port is operating in 1000base-X mode, autonegotiation must
be enabled. It then implements 2500base-X by up-clocking the Serdes by
2.5x.

Therefore, to get 2500base-X using 1000base-X mode on these devices, it
follows that autonegotiation must be enabled. Since phylink's origins
are for these devices, and 2500base-X was not standardised at the time,
and there was no documentation online to describe what 2500base-X
actually was, a decision had to be made, and the logical thing to do
at that point was to support AN, especially as one can use it to
negotiate pause modes.

Note that NETA and PP2 have never supported half-duplex on 1G or 2.5G
speeds, so the clause 37 negotiation has only ever dealt with pause
modes, and again, it seemed logical and sensible at the time to allow
pause modes to still be negotiated at 2500base-X speed. Especially as
one can use FibreChannel SFPs to link two machines together using
2500base-X in the same way that you can link them together using
1000base-X.

Had manufacturers been more open with their documentation, and had they
used a common term, maybe this could have been different, but in an
information vacuum, decisions have to be made, even if they turn out to
be wrong later on - but we have to live with those consequences.

As I've stated before, I know I'm not alone in this - there are SFPs
that support 2500base-X (particularly GPON SFPs) that appear to expect
caluse 37 AN on 2500base-X, since the Armada 3700 uDPU product is
designed to work with them and it was a requirement to have a working
2.5G connection between the NETA interfaces and the GPON SFPs. And as
I say, NETA wants AN enabled.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 07:21:45PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> Marvell documentation says that 2500base-x does not implement inband
> AN.

Does Marvell documentation actually call it 2500base-x when it says it
doesn't support in-band autoneg?

> But when it was first implemented, for some reason it was thought that
> 2500base-x is just 1000base-x at 2.5x speed, and 1000base-x does
> support inband AN. Also it worked during tests for both switches and
> SOC NICs, so it was enabled.
> 
> At the time 2500base-x was not standardized. Now 2500base-x is
> stanradrized, and the standard says that 2500base-x does not support
> clause 37 AN. I guess this is because where it is used, it is intended
> to work with clause 73 AN somehow.

When you say 2500base-x is standardized, do you mean there is a document
somewhere which I could use to read more about this?

> And then came 6373X switch, which didn't support clause 37 inband AN in
> 2500base-x mode (the AN reigster returned 0xffff or something when
> 2500base-x CMODE was set). Maybe 6373X finally supports clause 73 AN
> (I don't know, but I don't think so) and that is the reason they now
> forbid clause 37 AN in HW in 2500base-x.
> 
> But the problem is that by this time there is software out there then
> expects 2500base-x to have clause 37 AN enabled. Indeed a passive SFP
> cable did not work between MOX' SFP port and CN9130-CRB's SFP port
> when used with Peridot (6190), if C37 AN was disabled on 6393x and left
> enabled on Peridot.
> 
> I managed to work out how to enable C37 AN on 6393x:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=163000dbc772c1eae9bdfe7c8fe30155db1efd74
> 
> So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> 
> I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?

So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
has nothing to do with that decision. Right?

Is this by design of the 'managed' property, or is it an interpretation
quirk of Marvell drivers? Some other drivers enable in-band autoneg only
when manage = "in-band-status", and no one really said anything about
that during review, so I came to believe that this is the expectation.
I'm confused now, I was hoping Russell could clarify.

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 07:21:45PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> Marvell documentation says that 2500base-x does not implement inband
> AN.

Does Marvell documentation actually call it 2500base-x when it says it
doesn't support in-band autoneg?

> But when it was first implemented, for some reason it was thought that
> 2500base-x is just 1000base-x at 2.5x speed, and 1000base-x does
> support inband AN. Also it worked during tests for both switches and
> SOC NICs, so it was enabled.
> 
> At the time 2500base-x was not standardized. Now 2500base-x is
> stanradrized, and the standard says that 2500base-x does not support
> clause 37 AN. I guess this is because where it is used, it is intended
> to work with clause 73 AN somehow.

When you say 2500base-x is standardized, do you mean there is a document
somewhere which I could use to read more about this?

> And then came 6373X switch, which didn't support clause 37 inband AN in
> 2500base-x mode (the AN reigster returned 0xffff or something when
> 2500base-x CMODE was set). Maybe 6373X finally supports clause 73 AN
> (I don't know, but I don't think so) and that is the reason they now
> forbid clause 37 AN in HW in 2500base-x.
> 
> But the problem is that by this time there is software out there then
> expects 2500base-x to have clause 37 AN enabled. Indeed a passive SFP
> cable did not work between MOX' SFP port and CN9130-CRB's SFP port
> when used with Peridot (6190), if C37 AN was disabled on 6393x and left
> enabled on Peridot.
> 
> I managed to work out how to enable C37 AN on 6393x:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=163000dbc772c1eae9bdfe7c8fe30155db1efd74
> 
> So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> 
> I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?

So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
has nothing to do with that decision. Right?

Is this by design of the 'managed' property, or is it an interpretation
quirk of Marvell drivers? Some other drivers enable in-band autoneg only
when manage = "in-band-status", and no one really said anything about
that during review, so I came to believe that this is the expectation.
I'm confused now, I was hoping Russell could clarify.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 09:22:16PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 07:21:45PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> > And then came 6373X switch, which didn't support clause 37 inband AN in
> > 2500base-x mode (the AN reigster returned 0xffff or something when
> > 2500base-x CMODE was set). Maybe 6373X finally supports clause 73 AN
> > (I don't know, but I don't think so) and that is the reason they now
> > forbid clause 37 AN in HW in 2500base-x.
> > 
> > But the problem is that by this time there is software out there then
> > expects 2500base-x to have clause 37 AN enabled. Indeed a passive SFP
> > cable did not work between MOX' SFP port and CN9130-CRB's SFP port
> > when used with Peridot (6190), if C37 AN was disabled on 6393x and left
> > enabled on Peridot.
> > 
> > I managed to work out how to enable C37 AN on 6393x:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=163000dbc772c1eae9bdfe7c8fe30155db1efd74
> > 
> > So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> > the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> > presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> > 
> > I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> > mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?
> 
> So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
> answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
> autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
> has nothing to do with that decision. Right?

I think we're getting a little too het up over this.

We have 1000base-X where, when we're not using in-band-status, we don't
use autoneg (some drivers that weren't caught in review annoyingly do
still use autoneg, but they shouldn't). We ignore the ethtool autoneg
bit.

We also have 1000base-X where we're using in-band-status, and we then
respect the ethtool autoneg bit.

So, wouldn't it be logical if 2500base-X were implemented the same way,
and on setups where 2500base-X does not support clause 37 AN, we
clear the ethtool autoneg bit? If we have 2500base-X being used as the
media link, surely this is the right behaviour?

(This has implications for the rate adaption case, since the 2500base-X
link is not the media, and therefore the state of the autoneg bit
shouldn't apply to the 2500base-X link.)

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 09:22:16PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 07:21:45PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> > And then came 6373X switch, which didn't support clause 37 inband AN in
> > 2500base-x mode (the AN reigster returned 0xffff or something when
> > 2500base-x CMODE was set). Maybe 6373X finally supports clause 73 AN
> > (I don't know, but I don't think so) and that is the reason they now
> > forbid clause 37 AN in HW in 2500base-x.
> > 
> > But the problem is that by this time there is software out there then
> > expects 2500base-x to have clause 37 AN enabled. Indeed a passive SFP
> > cable did not work between MOX' SFP port and CN9130-CRB's SFP port
> > when used with Peridot (6190), if C37 AN was disabled on 6393x and left
> > enabled on Peridot.
> > 
> > I managed to work out how to enable C37 AN on 6393x:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=163000dbc772c1eae9bdfe7c8fe30155db1efd74
> > 
> > So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> > the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> > presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> > 
> > I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> > mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?
> 
> So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
> answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
> autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
> has nothing to do with that decision. Right?

I think we're getting a little too het up over this.

We have 1000base-X where, when we're not using in-band-status, we don't
use autoneg (some drivers that weren't caught in review annoyingly do
still use autoneg, but they shouldn't). We ignore the ethtool autoneg
bit.

We also have 1000base-X where we're using in-band-status, and we then
respect the ethtool autoneg bit.

So, wouldn't it be logical if 2500base-X were implemented the same way,
and on setups where 2500base-X does not support clause 37 AN, we
clear the ethtool autoneg bit? If we have 2500base-X being used as the
media link, surely this is the right behaviour?

(This has implications for the rate adaption case, since the 2500base-X
link is not the media, and therefore the state of the autoneg bit
shouldn't apply to the 2500base-X link.)

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:14:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> > > the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> > > presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> > > 
> > > I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> > > mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?
> > 
> > So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
> > answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
> > autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
> > has nothing to do with that decision. Right?
> 
> I think we're getting a little too het up over this.

No, I think it's relevant to this patch set.

> We have 1000base-X where, when we're not using in-band-status, we don't
> use autoneg (some drivers that weren't caught in review annoyingly do
> still use autoneg, but they shouldn't). We ignore the ethtool autoneg
> bit.
> 
> We also have 1000base-X where we're using in-band-status, and we then
> respect the ethtool autoneg bit.
> 
> So, wouldn't it be logical if 2500base-X were implemented the same way,
> and on setups where 2500base-X does not support clause 37 AN, we
> clear the ethtool autoneg bit? If we have 2500base-X being used as the
> media link, surely this is the right behaviour?

The ethtool autoneg bit is only relevant when the PCS is the last thing
before the medium. But if the SERDES protocol connects the MAC to the PHY,
or the MAC to another MAC (such as the case here, CPU or DSA ports),
there won't be any ethtool bit to take into consideration, and that's
where my question is. Is there any expected correlation between enabling
in-band autoneg and the presence or absence of managed = "in-band-status"?

> (This has implications for the rate adaption case, since the 2500base-X
> link is not the media, and therefore the state of the autoneg bit
> shouldn't apply to the 2500base-X link.)

This is closer to what I was interested in knowing, but still not that.

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:14:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> > > the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> > > presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> > > 
> > > I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> > > mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?
> > 
> > So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
> > answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
> > autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
> > has nothing to do with that decision. Right?
> 
> I think we're getting a little too het up over this.

No, I think it's relevant to this patch set.

> We have 1000base-X where, when we're not using in-band-status, we don't
> use autoneg (some drivers that weren't caught in review annoyingly do
> still use autoneg, but they shouldn't). We ignore the ethtool autoneg
> bit.
> 
> We also have 1000base-X where we're using in-band-status, and we then
> respect the ethtool autoneg bit.
> 
> So, wouldn't it be logical if 2500base-X were implemented the same way,
> and on setups where 2500base-X does not support clause 37 AN, we
> clear the ethtool autoneg bit? If we have 2500base-X being used as the
> media link, surely this is the right behaviour?

The ethtool autoneg bit is only relevant when the PCS is the last thing
before the medium. But if the SERDES protocol connects the MAC to the PHY,
or the MAC to another MAC (such as the case here, CPU or DSA ports),
there won't be any ethtool bit to take into consideration, and that's
where my question is. Is there any expected correlation between enabling
in-band autoneg and the presence or absence of managed = "in-band-status"?

> (This has implications for the rate adaption case, since the 2500base-X
> link is not the media, and therefore the state of the autoneg bit
> shouldn't apply to the 2500base-X link.)

This is closer to what I was interested in knowing, but still not that.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Sakari Ailus]

Hi Vladimir,

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 01:56:52AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Sakari,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 08:50:27AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Basically what your patch is doing is adding a helper function that creates
> > an fwnode with a given name. This functionality was there previously through
> > software_node_register_nodes(), with node allocation responsibility residing
> > on the caller. It's used e.g. here:
> > drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu3/cio2-bridge.c .
> > 
> > The larger question is perhaps when can you safely remove software nodes.
> > And which of these two APIs would be preferred. I haven't checked how many
> > users each has. There's no refcounting nor locking for software nodes, so
> > once made visible to the rest of the kernel, they're always expected to be
> > there, unchanged, or at least it needs to be known when they can be removed.
> 
> Just for my clarity, are you saying that this printf selftest is
> violating the software nodes' expectation to always be there unchanged
> and never be removed?

No. This is the other case, i.e. it's known the nodes can be removed.

> 
> static void __init fwnode_pointer(void)
> {
> 	const struct software_node softnodes[] = {
> 		{ .name = "first", },
> 		{ .name = "second", .parent = &softnodes[0], },
> 		{ .name = "third", .parent = &softnodes[1], },
> 		{ NULL /* Guardian */ }
> 	};
> 	const char * const full_name = "first/second/third";
> 	const char * const full_name_second = "first/second";
> 	const char * const second_name = "second";
> 	const char * const third_name = "third";
> 	int rval;
> 
> 	rval = software_node_register_nodes(softnodes);
> 	if (rval) {
> 		pr_warn("cannot register softnodes; rval %d\n", rval);
> 		return;
> 	}
> 
> 	test(full_name_second, "%pfw", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[1]));
> 	test(full_name, "%pfw", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[2]));
> 	test(full_name, "%pfwf", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[2]));
> 	test(second_name, "%pfwP", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[1]));
> 	test(third_name, "%pfwP", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[2]));
> 
> 	software_node_unregister_nodes(softnodes);
> }
> 
> The use case in this patch set is essentially equivalent to what printf
> does: exposing the software nodes to the rest of the kernel and to user
> space is probably not necessary, it's just that we need to call a
> function that parses their structure (essentially an equivalent to
> calling "test" above). Could you indicate whether there is a better
> alternative of doing this?

I'm actually not suggesting to do otherwise. What I wanted to say was that
it'd be best to settle with a single API to create software nodes while
keeping in mind serialising access to the data structure as well as
the lifetime of the software nodes.

This patch is adding another API function to register software nodes which
expands the scope of another that effectively did not allow sub-nodes.
Lifetime management currently doesn't really exist for ACPI nodes (device
or data) and only exists in somewhat unsatisfactory form for DT nodes. That
might be still the best model for software nodes.

Perhaps the API this patch adds is nicer to use than
software_node_register_nodes() and better lends itself for adding
refcounting later on.

I wonder what Andy or Heikki think.

-- 
Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Sakari Ailus]

Hi Vladimir,

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 01:56:52AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Sakari,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 08:50:27AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Basically what your patch is doing is adding a helper function that creates
> > an fwnode with a given name. This functionality was there previously through
> > software_node_register_nodes(), with node allocation responsibility residing
> > on the caller. It's used e.g. here:
> > drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu3/cio2-bridge.c .
> > 
> > The larger question is perhaps when can you safely remove software nodes.
> > And which of these two APIs would be preferred. I haven't checked how many
> > users each has. There's no refcounting nor locking for software nodes, so
> > once made visible to the rest of the kernel, they're always expected to be
> > there, unchanged, or at least it needs to be known when they can be removed.
> 
> Just for my clarity, are you saying that this printf selftest is
> violating the software nodes' expectation to always be there unchanged
> and never be removed?

No. This is the other case, i.e. it's known the nodes can be removed.

> 
> static void __init fwnode_pointer(void)
> {
> 	const struct software_node softnodes[] = {
> 		{ .name = "first", },
> 		{ .name = "second", .parent = &softnodes[0], },
> 		{ .name = "third", .parent = &softnodes[1], },
> 		{ NULL /* Guardian */ }
> 	};
> 	const char * const full_name = "first/second/third";
> 	const char * const full_name_second = "first/second";
> 	const char * const second_name = "second";
> 	const char * const third_name = "third";
> 	int rval;
> 
> 	rval = software_node_register_nodes(softnodes);
> 	if (rval) {
> 		pr_warn("cannot register softnodes; rval %d\n", rval);
> 		return;
> 	}
> 
> 	test(full_name_second, "%pfw", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[1]));
> 	test(full_name, "%pfw", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[2]));
> 	test(full_name, "%pfwf", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[2]));
> 	test(second_name, "%pfwP", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[1]));
> 	test(third_name, "%pfwP", software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[2]));
> 
> 	software_node_unregister_nodes(softnodes);
> }
> 
> The use case in this patch set is essentially equivalent to what printf
> does: exposing the software nodes to the rest of the kernel and to user
> space is probably not necessary, it's just that we need to call a
> function that parses their structure (essentially an equivalent to
> calling "test" above). Could you indicate whether there is a better
> alternative of doing this?

I'm actually not suggesting to do otherwise. What I wanted to say was that
it'd be best to settle with a single API to create software nodes while
keeping in mind serialising access to the data structure as well as
the lifetime of the software nodes.

This patch is adding another API function to register software nodes which
expands the scope of another that effectively did not allow sub-nodes.
Lifetime management currently doesn't really exist for ACPI nodes (device
or data) and only exists in somewhat unsatisfactory form for DT nodes. That
might be still the best model for software nodes.

Perhaps the API this patch adds is nicer to use than
software_node_register_nodes() and better lends itself for adding
refcounting later on.

I wonder what Andy or Heikki think.

-- 
Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:36:45AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:14:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> > > > the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> > > > presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> > > > mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?
> > > 
> > > So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
> > > answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
> > > autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
> > > has nothing to do with that decision. Right?
> > 
> > I think we're getting a little too het up over this.
> 
> No, I think it's relevant to this patch set.
> 
> > We have 1000base-X where, when we're not using in-band-status, we don't
> > use autoneg (some drivers that weren't caught in review annoyingly do
> > still use autoneg, but they shouldn't). We ignore the ethtool autoneg
> > bit.
> > 
> > We also have 1000base-X where we're using in-band-status, and we then
> > respect the ethtool autoneg bit.
> > 
> > So, wouldn't it be logical if 2500base-X were implemented the same way,
> > and on setups where 2500base-X does not support clause 37 AN, we
> > clear the ethtool autoneg bit? If we have 2500base-X being used as the
> > media link, surely this is the right behaviour?
> 
> The ethtool autoneg bit is only relevant when the PCS is the last thing
> before the medium. But if the SERDES protocol connects the MAC to the PHY,
> or the MAC to another MAC (such as the case here, CPU or DSA ports),
> there won't be any ethtool bit to take into consideration, and that's
> where my question is. Is there any expected correlation between enabling
> in-band autoneg and the presence or absence of managed = "in-band-status"?

This topic is something I was looking at back in November 2021, trying
to work out what the most sensible way of indicating to a PCS whether
it should enable in-band or not:

http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e4ea7d035e7e04e87dfd86702f59952e0cecc18d
http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e454bf101fa457dd5c2cea0b1aaab7ba33048089
http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e2c57490f205ae7c0e11fcf756675937f933be5e

The intention there was to move the decision about whether a PCS should
enable autoneg out of the PCS and into phylink, but doing that one comes
immediately on the problem of (e.g.) Marvell NETA/PP2 vs Lynx having
different interpretations for 2500base-X. There are also a number of
drivers that do not follow MLO_AN_INBAND-means-use-inband or not for
things such as SGMII or 1000base-X.

This means we have no standard interpretation amongst phylink users
about when in-band signalling should be enabled or disabled, which
means moving that decision into phylink today isn't possible.

The only thing we could do is provide the PCS with an additional bit
of information so it can make the decision - something like a boolean
"pcs_connects_to_medium" flag, and keep the decision making in the
PCS-specific code - sadly keeping the variability between different
PCS implementations.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:36:45AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:14:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> > > > the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> > > > presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> > > > mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?
> > > 
> > > So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
> > > answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
> > > autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
> > > has nothing to do with that decision. Right?
> > 
> > I think we're getting a little too het up over this.
> 
> No, I think it's relevant to this patch set.
> 
> > We have 1000base-X where, when we're not using in-band-status, we don't
> > use autoneg (some drivers that weren't caught in review annoyingly do
> > still use autoneg, but they shouldn't). We ignore the ethtool autoneg
> > bit.
> > 
> > We also have 1000base-X where we're using in-band-status, and we then
> > respect the ethtool autoneg bit.
> > 
> > So, wouldn't it be logical if 2500base-X were implemented the same way,
> > and on setups where 2500base-X does not support clause 37 AN, we
> > clear the ethtool autoneg bit? If we have 2500base-X being used as the
> > media link, surely this is the right behaviour?
> 
> The ethtool autoneg bit is only relevant when the PCS is the last thing
> before the medium. But if the SERDES protocol connects the MAC to the PHY,
> or the MAC to another MAC (such as the case here, CPU or DSA ports),
> there won't be any ethtool bit to take into consideration, and that's
> where my question is. Is there any expected correlation between enabling
> in-band autoneg and the presence or absence of managed = "in-band-status"?

This topic is something I was looking at back in November 2021, trying
to work out what the most sensible way of indicating to a PCS whether
it should enable in-band or not:

http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e4ea7d035e7e04e87dfd86702f59952e0cecc18d
http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e454bf101fa457dd5c2cea0b1aaab7ba33048089
http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e2c57490f205ae7c0e11fcf756675937f933be5e

The intention there was to move the decision about whether a PCS should
enable autoneg out of the PCS and into phylink, but doing that one comes
immediately on the problem of (e.g.) Marvell NETA/PP2 vs Lynx having
different interpretations for 2500base-X. There are also a number of
drivers that do not follow MLO_AN_INBAND-means-use-inband or not for
things such as SGMII or 1000base-X.

This means we have no standard interpretation amongst phylink users
about when in-band signalling should be enabled or disabled, which
means moving that decision into phylink today isn't possible.

The only thing we could do is provide the PCS with an additional bit
of information so it can make the decision - something like a boolean
"pcs_connects_to_medium" flag, and keep the decision making in the
PCS-specific code - sadly keeping the variability between different
PCS implementations.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 09:28:08AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:36:45AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:14:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > > So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> > > > > the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> > > > > presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> > > > > mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?
> > > > 
> > > > So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
> > > > answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
> > > > autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
> > > > has nothing to do with that decision. Right?
> > > 
> > > I think we're getting a little too het up over this.
> > 
> > No, I think it's relevant to this patch set.
> > 
> > > We have 1000base-X where, when we're not using in-band-status, we don't
> > > use autoneg (some drivers that weren't caught in review annoyingly do
> > > still use autoneg, but they shouldn't). We ignore the ethtool autoneg
> > > bit.
> > > 
> > > We also have 1000base-X where we're using in-band-status, and we then
> > > respect the ethtool autoneg bit.
> > > 
> > > So, wouldn't it be logical if 2500base-X were implemented the same way,
> > > and on setups where 2500base-X does not support clause 37 AN, we
> > > clear the ethtool autoneg bit? If we have 2500base-X being used as the
> > > media link, surely this is the right behaviour?
> > 
> > The ethtool autoneg bit is only relevant when the PCS is the last thing
> > before the medium. But if the SERDES protocol connects the MAC to the PHY,
> > or the MAC to another MAC (such as the case here, CPU or DSA ports),
> > there won't be any ethtool bit to take into consideration, and that's
> > where my question is. Is there any expected correlation between enabling
> > in-band autoneg and the presence or absence of managed = "in-band-status"?
> 
> This topic is something I was looking at back in November 2021, trying
> to work out what the most sensible way of indicating to a PCS whether
> it should enable in-band or not:
> 
> http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e4ea7d035e7e04e87dfd86702f59952e0cecc18d
> http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e454bf101fa457dd5c2cea0b1aaab7ba33048089
> http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e2c57490f205ae7c0e11fcf756675937f933be5e
> 
> The intention there was to move the decision about whether a PCS should
> enable autoneg out of the PCS and into phylink, but doing that one comes
> immediately on the problem of (e.g.) Marvell NETA/PP2 vs Lynx having
> different interpretations for 2500base-X. There are also a number of
> drivers that do not follow MLO_AN_INBAND-means-use-inband or not for
> things such as SGMII or 1000base-X.
> 
> This means we have no standard interpretation amongst phylink users
> about when in-band signalling should be enabled or disabled, which
> means moving that decision into phylink today isn't possible.
> 
> The only thing we could do is provide the PCS with an additional bit
> of information so it can make the decision - something like a boolean
> "pcs_connects_to_medium" flag, and keep the decision making in the
> PCS-specific code - sadly keeping the variability between different
> PCS implementations.

The way I understand what you're saying is that there is no guarantee
that the DSA master and CPU port will agree whether to use in-band
autoneg or not here (and implicitly, there is no guarantee that this
link will work):

	&eth0 {
		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
		managed = "in-band-status";
	};

	&switch_cpu_port {
		ethernet = <&eth0>;
		phy-mode = "25000base-x";
		managed = "in-band-status";
	};

similarly, there is a good chance that the DT description below might
result in a functional link:

	&eth0 {
		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
		managed = "in-band-status";
	};

	&switch_cpu_port {
		ethernet = <&eth0>;
		phy-mode = "25000base-x";

		fixed-link {
			speed = <2500>;
			full-duplex;
		};
	};

There is no expectation from either DT description to use in-band
autoneg or not.

The fact that of_phy_is_fixed_link() was made by Stas Sergeev to say
that a 'managed' link with the value != 'auto' is fixed prompted me to
study exactly what those changes were about.

Was the managed = "in-band-status" property introduced by Stas Sergeev
in this commit:

commit 4cba5c2103657d43d0886e4cff8004d95a3d0def
Author: Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru>
Date:   Mon Jul 20 17:49:57 2015 -0700

    of_mdio: add new DT property 'managed' to specify the PHY management type

    Currently the PHY management type is selected by the MAC driver arbitrary.
    The decision is based on the presence of the "fixed-link" node and on a
    will of the driver's authors.
    This caused a regression recently, when mvneta driver suddenly started
    to use the in-band status for auto-negotiation on fixed links.
    It appears the auto-negotiation may not work when expected by the MAC driver.
    Sebastien Rannou explains:
    << Yes, I confirm that my HW does not generate an in-band status. AFAIK, it's
    a PHY that aggregates 4xSGMIIs to 1xQSGMII ; the MAC side of the PHY (with
    inband status) is connected to the switch through QSGMII, and in this context
    we are on the media side of the PHY. >>
    https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/10/206

    This patch introduces the new string property 'managed' that allows
    the user to set the management type explicitly.
    The supported values are:
    "auto" - default. Uses either MDIO or nothing, depending on the presence
    of the fixed-link node
    "in-band-status" - use in-band status

    Signed-off-by: Stas Sergeev <stsp@users.sourceforge.net>

    CC: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
    CC: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>
    CC: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
    CC: Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>
    CC: Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>
    CC: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
    CC: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
    CC: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
    CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
    CC: netdev@vger.kernel.org
    Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

not added specifically to mean whether the MAC should use in-band
autoneg or not? See commit f8af8e6eb950 ("mvneta: use inband status only
when explicitly enabled") for the mvneta change, after which the code
became:

mvneta_probe:

	err = of_property_read_string(dn, "managed", &managed);
	pp->use_inband_status = (err == 0 &&
				 strcmp(managed, "in-band-status") == 0);

mvneta_defaults_set:

	if (pp->use_inband_status) {
		val = mvreg_read(pp, MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG);
		val &= ~(MVNETA_GMAC_FORCE_LINK_PASS |
			 MVNETA_GMAC_FORCE_LINK_DOWN |
			 MVNETA_GMAC_AN_FLOW_CTRL_EN);
		val |= MVNETA_GMAC_INBAND_AN_ENABLE |
		       MVNETA_GMAC_AN_SPEED_EN |
		       MVNETA_GMAC_AN_DUPLEX_EN;
		mvreg_write(pp, MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG, val);
	} else {
		val = mvreg_read(pp, MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG);
		val &= ~(MVNETA_GMAC_INBAND_AN_ENABLE |
		       MVNETA_GMAC_AN_SPEED_EN |
		       MVNETA_GMAC_AN_DUPLEX_EN);
		mvreg_write(pp, MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG, val);
	}

mvneta_port_power_up:

	if (pp->use_inband_status)
		ctrl |= MVNETA_GMAC2_INBAND_AN_ENABLE;

This is why I am asking whether there is any formal definition of what
managed = "in-band-status" means. You've said it means about retrieving
link status from the PCS. What are you basing upon when you are saying that?

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 09:28:08AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:36:45AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:14:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > > So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> > > > > the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> > > > > presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> > > > > mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?
> > > > 
> > > > So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
> > > > answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
> > > > autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
> > > > has nothing to do with that decision. Right?
> > > 
> > > I think we're getting a little too het up over this.
> > 
> > No, I think it's relevant to this patch set.
> > 
> > > We have 1000base-X where, when we're not using in-band-status, we don't
> > > use autoneg (some drivers that weren't caught in review annoyingly do
> > > still use autoneg, but they shouldn't). We ignore the ethtool autoneg
> > > bit.
> > > 
> > > We also have 1000base-X where we're using in-band-status, and we then
> > > respect the ethtool autoneg bit.
> > > 
> > > So, wouldn't it be logical if 2500base-X were implemented the same way,
> > > and on setups where 2500base-X does not support clause 37 AN, we
> > > clear the ethtool autoneg bit? If we have 2500base-X being used as the
> > > media link, surely this is the right behaviour?
> > 
> > The ethtool autoneg bit is only relevant when the PCS is the last thing
> > before the medium. But if the SERDES protocol connects the MAC to the PHY,
> > or the MAC to another MAC (such as the case here, CPU or DSA ports),
> > there won't be any ethtool bit to take into consideration, and that's
> > where my question is. Is there any expected correlation between enabling
> > in-band autoneg and the presence or absence of managed = "in-band-status"?
> 
> This topic is something I was looking at back in November 2021, trying
> to work out what the most sensible way of indicating to a PCS whether
> it should enable in-band or not:
> 
> http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e4ea7d035e7e04e87dfd86702f59952e0cecc18d
> http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e454bf101fa457dd5c2cea0b1aaab7ba33048089
> http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e2c57490f205ae7c0e11fcf756675937f933be5e
> 
> The intention there was to move the decision about whether a PCS should
> enable autoneg out of the PCS and into phylink, but doing that one comes
> immediately on the problem of (e.g.) Marvell NETA/PP2 vs Lynx having
> different interpretations for 2500base-X. There are also a number of
> drivers that do not follow MLO_AN_INBAND-means-use-inband or not for
> things such as SGMII or 1000base-X.
> 
> This means we have no standard interpretation amongst phylink users
> about when in-band signalling should be enabled or disabled, which
> means moving that decision into phylink today isn't possible.
> 
> The only thing we could do is provide the PCS with an additional bit
> of information so it can make the decision - something like a boolean
> "pcs_connects_to_medium" flag, and keep the decision making in the
> PCS-specific code - sadly keeping the variability between different
> PCS implementations.

The way I understand what you're saying is that there is no guarantee
that the DSA master and CPU port will agree whether to use in-band
autoneg or not here (and implicitly, there is no guarantee that this
link will work):

	&eth0 {
		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
		managed = "in-band-status";
	};

	&switch_cpu_port {
		ethernet = <&eth0>;
		phy-mode = "25000base-x";
		managed = "in-band-status";
	};

similarly, there is a good chance that the DT description below might
result in a functional link:

	&eth0 {
		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
		managed = "in-band-status";
	};

	&switch_cpu_port {
		ethernet = <&eth0>;
		phy-mode = "25000base-x";

		fixed-link {
			speed = <2500>;
			full-duplex;
		};
	};

There is no expectation from either DT description to use in-band
autoneg or not.

The fact that of_phy_is_fixed_link() was made by Stas Sergeev to say
that a 'managed' link with the value != 'auto' is fixed prompted me to
study exactly what those changes were about.

Was the managed = "in-band-status" property introduced by Stas Sergeev
in this commit:

commit 4cba5c2103657d43d0886e4cff8004d95a3d0def
Author: Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru>
Date:   Mon Jul 20 17:49:57 2015 -0700

    of_mdio: add new DT property 'managed' to specify the PHY management type

    Currently the PHY management type is selected by the MAC driver arbitrary.
    The decision is based on the presence of the "fixed-link" node and on a
    will of the driver's authors.
    This caused a regression recently, when mvneta driver suddenly started
    to use the in-band status for auto-negotiation on fixed links.
    It appears the auto-negotiation may not work when expected by the MAC driver.
    Sebastien Rannou explains:
    << Yes, I confirm that my HW does not generate an in-band status. AFAIK, it's
    a PHY that aggregates 4xSGMIIs to 1xQSGMII ; the MAC side of the PHY (with
    inband status) is connected to the switch through QSGMII, and in this context
    we are on the media side of the PHY. >>
    https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/10/206

    This patch introduces the new string property 'managed' that allows
    the user to set the management type explicitly.
    The supported values are:
    "auto" - default. Uses either MDIO or nothing, depending on the presence
    of the fixed-link node
    "in-band-status" - use in-band status

    Signed-off-by: Stas Sergeev <stsp@users.sourceforge.net>

    CC: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
    CC: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>
    CC: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
    CC: Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>
    CC: Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>
    CC: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
    CC: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
    CC: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
    CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
    CC: netdev@vger.kernel.org
    Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

not added specifically to mean whether the MAC should use in-band
autoneg or not? See commit f8af8e6eb950 ("mvneta: use inband status only
when explicitly enabled") for the mvneta change, after which the code
became:

mvneta_probe:

	err = of_property_read_string(dn, "managed", &managed);
	pp->use_inband_status = (err == 0 &&
				 strcmp(managed, "in-band-status") == 0);

mvneta_defaults_set:

	if (pp->use_inband_status) {
		val = mvreg_read(pp, MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG);
		val &= ~(MVNETA_GMAC_FORCE_LINK_PASS |
			 MVNETA_GMAC_FORCE_LINK_DOWN |
			 MVNETA_GMAC_AN_FLOW_CTRL_EN);
		val |= MVNETA_GMAC_INBAND_AN_ENABLE |
		       MVNETA_GMAC_AN_SPEED_EN |
		       MVNETA_GMAC_AN_DUPLEX_EN;
		mvreg_write(pp, MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG, val);
	} else {
		val = mvreg_read(pp, MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG);
		val &= ~(MVNETA_GMAC_INBAND_AN_ENABLE |
		       MVNETA_GMAC_AN_SPEED_EN |
		       MVNETA_GMAC_AN_DUPLEX_EN);
		mvreg_write(pp, MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG, val);
	}

mvneta_port_power_up:

	if (pp->use_inband_status)
		ctrl |= MVNETA_GMAC2_INBAND_AN_ENABLE;

This is why I am asking whether there is any formal definition of what
managed = "in-band-status" means. You've said it means about retrieving
link status from the PCS. What are you basing upon when you are saying that?

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 01:52:38PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 09:28:08AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:36:45AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:14:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > > > So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> > > > > > the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> > > > > > presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> > > > > > mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
> > > > > answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
> > > > > autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
> > > > > has nothing to do with that decision. Right?
> > > > 
> > > > I think we're getting a little too het up over this.
> > > 
> > > No, I think it's relevant to this patch set.
> > > 
> > > > We have 1000base-X where, when we're not using in-band-status, we don't
> > > > use autoneg (some drivers that weren't caught in review annoyingly do
> > > > still use autoneg, but they shouldn't). We ignore the ethtool autoneg
> > > > bit.
> > > > 
> > > > We also have 1000base-X where we're using in-band-status, and we then
> > > > respect the ethtool autoneg bit.
> > > > 
> > > > So, wouldn't it be logical if 2500base-X were implemented the same way,
> > > > and on setups where 2500base-X does not support clause 37 AN, we
> > > > clear the ethtool autoneg bit? If we have 2500base-X being used as the
> > > > media link, surely this is the right behaviour?
> > > 
> > > The ethtool autoneg bit is only relevant when the PCS is the last thing
> > > before the medium. But if the SERDES protocol connects the MAC to the PHY,
> > > or the MAC to another MAC (such as the case here, CPU or DSA ports),
> > > there won't be any ethtool bit to take into consideration, and that's
> > > where my question is. Is there any expected correlation between enabling
> > > in-band autoneg and the presence or absence of managed = "in-band-status"?
> > 
> > This topic is something I was looking at back in November 2021, trying
> > to work out what the most sensible way of indicating to a PCS whether
> > it should enable in-band or not:
> > 
> > http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e4ea7d035e7e04e87dfd86702f59952e0cecc18d
> > http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e454bf101fa457dd5c2cea0b1aaab7ba33048089
> > http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e2c57490f205ae7c0e11fcf756675937f933be5e
> > 
> > The intention there was to move the decision about whether a PCS should
> > enable autoneg out of the PCS and into phylink, but doing that one comes
> > immediately on the problem of (e.g.) Marvell NETA/PP2 vs Lynx having
> > different interpretations for 2500base-X. There are also a number of
> > drivers that do not follow MLO_AN_INBAND-means-use-inband or not for
> > things such as SGMII or 1000base-X.
> > 
> > This means we have no standard interpretation amongst phylink users
> > about when in-band signalling should be enabled or disabled, which
> > means moving that decision into phylink today isn't possible.
> > 
> > The only thing we could do is provide the PCS with an additional bit
> > of information so it can make the decision - something like a boolean
> > "pcs_connects_to_medium" flag, and keep the decision making in the
> > PCS-specific code - sadly keeping the variability between different
> > PCS implementations.
> 
> The way I understand what you're saying is that there is no guarantee
> that the DSA master and CPU port will agree whether to use in-band
> autoneg or not here (and implicitly, there is no guarantee that this
> link will work):
> 
> 	&eth0 {
> 		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> 		managed = "in-band-status";
> 	};
> 
> 	&switch_cpu_port {
> 		ethernet = <&eth0>;
> 		phy-mode = "25000base-x";

I'll assume that 25000 is a typo.

> 		managed = "in-band-status";
> 	};

Today, there is no guarantee - because it depends on how people have
chosen to implement 2500base-X, and whether the hardware requires the
use of in-band AN or prohibits it. This is what happens when stuff
isn't standardised - one ends up with differing implementations doing
different things, and this has happened not _only_ at hardware level
but also software level as well.

You have to also throw into this that various implementations also have
an "AN bypass" flag, which means if they see what looks like a valid
SERDES data stream, but do not see the AN data, after a certain timeout
they allow the link to come up - and again, whether that is enabled or
not is pot luck today.

> similarly, there is a good chance that the DT description below might
> result in a functional link:
> 
> 	&eth0 {
> 		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> 		managed = "in-band-status";
> 	};
> 
> 	&switch_cpu_port {
> 		ethernet = <&eth0>;
> 		phy-mode = "25000base-x";
> 
> 		fixed-link {
> 			speed = <2500>;
> 			full-duplex;
> 		};
> 	};
> 
> There is no expectation from either DT description to use in-band
> autoneg or not.
> 
> The fact that of_phy_is_fixed_link() was made by Stas Sergeev to say
> that a 'managed' link with the value != 'auto' is fixed prompted me to
> study exactly what those changes were about.

From what I can see, there is no formal definition of "in-band-status"
beyond what it says on the tin. The description in the DT binding
specification, which is really where this should be formally documented,
is totally lacking.

>     This patch introduces the new string property 'managed' that allows
>     the user to set the management type explicitly.
>     The supported values are:
>     "auto" - default. Uses either MDIO or nothing, depending on the presence
>     of the fixed-link node
>     "in-band-status" - use in-band status

This, and how this is implemented by mvneta, is the best we have to go
on for the meaning of this.

> This is why I am asking whether there is any formal definition of what
> managed = "in-band-status" means. You've said it means about retrieving
> link status from the PCS. What are you basing upon when you are saying that?

Given that this managed property was introduced for mvneta, mvneta's
implementation of it is the best reference we have to work out what
the intentions of it were beyond the commit text.

With in-band mode enabled, mvneta makes use of a fixed-link PHY, and
updates the fixed-link PHY with the status from its GMAC block (which
is the combined PCS+MAC).

So, when in-band mode is specified, the results from SGMII or 1000base-X
negotiation are read from the MAC side of the link, pushed into the
fixed-PHY, which then are reflected back into the driver via the usual
phylib adjust_link().

Have a read through mvneta's code at this commit:

git show 2eecb2e04abb62ef8ea7b43e1a46bdb5b99d1bf8:drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c

specifically, mvneta_fixed_link_update() and mvneta_adjust_link().
Note that when operating in in-band mode, there is actually no need
for the configuration of MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG to be touched
in any way since the values read from the MVNETA_GMAC_STATUS register
indicate what parameters the MAC is actually using. (The speed,
duplex, and pause bits in AUTONEG_CONFIG are ignored anyway if AN
is enabled.)

I know this is rather wooly, but not everything is defined in black and
white, and we need to do the best we can with the information that is
available.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 01:52:38PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 09:28:08AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:36:45AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:14:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > > > So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> > > > > > the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> > > > > > presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> > > > > > mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
> > > > > answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
> > > > > autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
> > > > > has nothing to do with that decision. Right?
> > > > 
> > > > I think we're getting a little too het up over this.
> > > 
> > > No, I think it's relevant to this patch set.
> > > 
> > > > We have 1000base-X where, when we're not using in-band-status, we don't
> > > > use autoneg (some drivers that weren't caught in review annoyingly do
> > > > still use autoneg, but they shouldn't). We ignore the ethtool autoneg
> > > > bit.
> > > > 
> > > > We also have 1000base-X where we're using in-band-status, and we then
> > > > respect the ethtool autoneg bit.
> > > > 
> > > > So, wouldn't it be logical if 2500base-X were implemented the same way,
> > > > and on setups where 2500base-X does not support clause 37 AN, we
> > > > clear the ethtool autoneg bit? If we have 2500base-X being used as the
> > > > media link, surely this is the right behaviour?
> > > 
> > > The ethtool autoneg bit is only relevant when the PCS is the last thing
> > > before the medium. But if the SERDES protocol connects the MAC to the PHY,
> > > or the MAC to another MAC (such as the case here, CPU or DSA ports),
> > > there won't be any ethtool bit to take into consideration, and that's
> > > where my question is. Is there any expected correlation between enabling
> > > in-band autoneg and the presence or absence of managed = "in-band-status"?
> > 
> > This topic is something I was looking at back in November 2021, trying
> > to work out what the most sensible way of indicating to a PCS whether
> > it should enable in-band or not:
> > 
> > http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e4ea7d035e7e04e87dfd86702f59952e0cecc18d
> > http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e454bf101fa457dd5c2cea0b1aaab7ba33048089
> > http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e2c57490f205ae7c0e11fcf756675937f933be5e
> > 
> > The intention there was to move the decision about whether a PCS should
> > enable autoneg out of the PCS and into phylink, but doing that one comes
> > immediately on the problem of (e.g.) Marvell NETA/PP2 vs Lynx having
> > different interpretations for 2500base-X. There are also a number of
> > drivers that do not follow MLO_AN_INBAND-means-use-inband or not for
> > things such as SGMII or 1000base-X.
> > 
> > This means we have no standard interpretation amongst phylink users
> > about when in-band signalling should be enabled or disabled, which
> > means moving that decision into phylink today isn't possible.
> > 
> > The only thing we could do is provide the PCS with an additional bit
> > of information so it can make the decision - something like a boolean
> > "pcs_connects_to_medium" flag, and keep the decision making in the
> > PCS-specific code - sadly keeping the variability between different
> > PCS implementations.
> 
> The way I understand what you're saying is that there is no guarantee
> that the DSA master and CPU port will agree whether to use in-band
> autoneg or not here (and implicitly, there is no guarantee that this
> link will work):
> 
> 	&eth0 {
> 		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> 		managed = "in-band-status";
> 	};
> 
> 	&switch_cpu_port {
> 		ethernet = <&eth0>;
> 		phy-mode = "25000base-x";

I'll assume that 25000 is a typo.

> 		managed = "in-band-status";
> 	};

Today, there is no guarantee - because it depends on how people have
chosen to implement 2500base-X, and whether the hardware requires the
use of in-band AN or prohibits it. This is what happens when stuff
isn't standardised - one ends up with differing implementations doing
different things, and this has happened not _only_ at hardware level
but also software level as well.

You have to also throw into this that various implementations also have
an "AN bypass" flag, which means if they see what looks like a valid
SERDES data stream, but do not see the AN data, after a certain timeout
they allow the link to come up - and again, whether that is enabled or
not is pot luck today.

> similarly, there is a good chance that the DT description below might
> result in a functional link:
> 
> 	&eth0 {
> 		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> 		managed = "in-band-status";
> 	};
> 
> 	&switch_cpu_port {
> 		ethernet = <&eth0>;
> 		phy-mode = "25000base-x";
> 
> 		fixed-link {
> 			speed = <2500>;
> 			full-duplex;
> 		};
> 	};
> 
> There is no expectation from either DT description to use in-band
> autoneg or not.
> 
> The fact that of_phy_is_fixed_link() was made by Stas Sergeev to say
> that a 'managed' link with the value != 'auto' is fixed prompted me to
> study exactly what those changes were about.

From what I can see, there is no formal definition of "in-band-status"
beyond what it says on the tin. The description in the DT binding
specification, which is really where this should be formally documented,
is totally lacking.

>     This patch introduces the new string property 'managed' that allows
>     the user to set the management type explicitly.
>     The supported values are:
>     "auto" - default. Uses either MDIO or nothing, depending on the presence
>     of the fixed-link node
>     "in-band-status" - use in-band status

This, and how this is implemented by mvneta, is the best we have to go
on for the meaning of this.

> This is why I am asking whether there is any formal definition of what
> managed = "in-band-status" means. You've said it means about retrieving
> link status from the PCS. What are you basing upon when you are saying that?

Given that this managed property was introduced for mvneta, mvneta's
implementation of it is the best reference we have to work out what
the intentions of it were beyond the commit text.

With in-band mode enabled, mvneta makes use of a fixed-link PHY, and
updates the fixed-link PHY with the status from its GMAC block (which
is the combined PCS+MAC).

So, when in-band mode is specified, the results from SGMII or 1000base-X
negotiation are read from the MAC side of the link, pushed into the
fixed-PHY, which then are reflected back into the driver via the usual
phylib adjust_link().

Have a read through mvneta's code at this commit:

git show 2eecb2e04abb62ef8ea7b43e1a46bdb5b99d1bf8:drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c

specifically, mvneta_fixed_link_update() and mvneta_adjust_link().
Note that when operating in in-band mode, there is actually no need
for the configuration of MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG to be touched
in any way since the values read from the MVNETA_GMAC_STATUS register
indicate what parameters the MAC is actually using. (The speed,
duplex, and pause bits in AUTONEG_CONFIG are ignored anyway if AN
is enabled.)

I know this is rather wooly, but not everything is defined in black and
white, and we need to do the best we can with the information that is
available.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:44:17PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> Given that this managed property was introduced for mvneta, mvneta's
> implementation of it is the best reference we have to work out what
> the intentions of it were beyond the commit text.
> 
> With in-band mode enabled, mvneta makes use of a fixed-link PHY, and
> updates the fixed-link PHY with the status from its GMAC block (which
> is the combined PCS+MAC).
> 
> So, when in-band mode is specified, the results from SGMII or 1000base-X
> negotiation are read from the MAC side of the link, pushed into the
> fixed-PHY, which then are reflected back into the driver via the usual
> phylib adjust_link().

... and I should have said that this is exactly why in-band mode is
treated as a fixed-link, even though it's nothing of the sort. It makes
use of the infrastructure that was present at the time (fixed-phy) to
implement this feature of reading the link status from the PCS/MAC end
of the link.

It may not have been the best design, but it's an evolved design based
on the code that was available and what people thought at the time (and
pre-dates my involvement with mvneta in mainline.)

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:44:17PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> Given that this managed property was introduced for mvneta, mvneta's
> implementation of it is the best reference we have to work out what
> the intentions of it were beyond the commit text.
> 
> With in-band mode enabled, mvneta makes use of a fixed-link PHY, and
> updates the fixed-link PHY with the status from its GMAC block (which
> is the combined PCS+MAC).
> 
> So, when in-band mode is specified, the results from SGMII or 1000base-X
> negotiation are read from the MAC side of the link, pushed into the
> fixed-PHY, which then are reflected back into the driver via the usual
> phylib adjust_link().

... and I should have said that this is exactly why in-band mode is
treated as a fixed-link, even though it's nothing of the sort. It makes
use of the infrastructure that was present at the time (fixed-phy) to
implement this feature of reading the link status from the PCS/MAC end
of the link.

It may not have been the best design, but it's an evolved design based
on the code that was available and what people thought at the time (and
pre-dates my involvement with mvneta in mainline.)

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:44:17PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 01:52:38PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 09:28:08AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:36:45AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:14:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > > > > So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> > > > > > > the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> > > > > > > presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> > > > > > > mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
> > > > > > answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
> > > > > > autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
> > > > > > has nothing to do with that decision. Right?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think we're getting a little too het up over this.
> > > > 
> > > > No, I think it's relevant to this patch set.
> > > > 
> > > > > We have 1000base-X where, when we're not using in-band-status, we don't
> > > > > use autoneg (some drivers that weren't caught in review annoyingly do
> > > > > still use autoneg, but they shouldn't). We ignore the ethtool autoneg
> > > > > bit.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We also have 1000base-X where we're using in-band-status, and we then
> > > > > respect the ethtool autoneg bit.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, wouldn't it be logical if 2500base-X were implemented the same way,
> > > > > and on setups where 2500base-X does not support clause 37 AN, we
> > > > > clear the ethtool autoneg bit? If we have 2500base-X being used as the
> > > > > media link, surely this is the right behaviour?
> > > > 
> > > > The ethtool autoneg bit is only relevant when the PCS is the last thing
> > > > before the medium. But if the SERDES protocol connects the MAC to the PHY,
> > > > or the MAC to another MAC (such as the case here, CPU or DSA ports),
> > > > there won't be any ethtool bit to take into consideration, and that's
> > > > where my question is. Is there any expected correlation between enabling
> > > > in-band autoneg and the presence or absence of managed = "in-band-status"?
> > > 
> > > This topic is something I was looking at back in November 2021, trying
> > > to work out what the most sensible way of indicating to a PCS whether
> > > it should enable in-band or not:
> > > 
> > > http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e4ea7d035e7e04e87dfd86702f59952e0cecc18d
> > > http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e454bf101fa457dd5c2cea0b1aaab7ba33048089
> > > http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e2c57490f205ae7c0e11fcf756675937f933be5e
> > > 
> > > The intention there was to move the decision about whether a PCS should
> > > enable autoneg out of the PCS and into phylink, but doing that one comes
> > > immediately on the problem of (e.g.) Marvell NETA/PP2 vs Lynx having
> > > different interpretations for 2500base-X. There are also a number of
> > > drivers that do not follow MLO_AN_INBAND-means-use-inband or not for
> > > things such as SGMII or 1000base-X.
> > > 
> > > This means we have no standard interpretation amongst phylink users
> > > about when in-band signalling should be enabled or disabled, which
> > > means moving that decision into phylink today isn't possible.
> > > 
> > > The only thing we could do is provide the PCS with an additional bit
> > > of information so it can make the decision - something like a boolean
> > > "pcs_connects_to_medium" flag, and keep the decision making in the
> > > PCS-specific code - sadly keeping the variability between different
> > > PCS implementations.
> > 
> > The way I understand what you're saying is that there is no guarantee
> > that the DSA master and CPU port will agree whether to use in-band
> > autoneg or not here (and implicitly, there is no guarantee that this
> > link will work):
> > 
> > 	&eth0 {
> > 		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> > 		managed = "in-band-status";
> > 	};
> > 
> > 	&switch_cpu_port {
> > 		ethernet = <&eth0>;
> > 		phy-mode = "25000base-x";
> 
> I'll assume that 25000 is a typo.

typo.

> > 		managed = "in-band-status";
> > 	};
> 
> Today, there is no guarantee - because it depends on how people have
> chosen to implement 2500base-X, and whether the hardware requires the
> use of in-band AN or prohibits it. This is what happens when stuff
> isn't standardised - one ends up with differing implementations doing
> different things, and this has happened not _only_ at hardware level
> but also software level as well.
> 
> You have to also throw into this that various implementations also have
> an "AN bypass" flag, which means if they see what looks like a valid
> SERDES data stream, but do not see the AN data, after a certain timeout
> they allow the link to come up - and again, whether that is enabled or
> not is pot luck today.

Interesting. After the timeout expires, does the lane ever transition
back into the encoding required for AN mode, in case there appears at a
later time someone willing to negotiate?

> > similarly, there is a good chance that the DT description below might
> > result in a functional link:
> > 
> > 	&eth0 {
> > 		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> > 		managed = "in-band-status";
> > 	};
> > 
> > 	&switch_cpu_port {
> > 		ethernet = <&eth0>;
> > 		phy-mode = "25000base-x";
> > 
> > 		fixed-link {
> > 			speed = <2500>;
> > 			full-duplex;
> > 		};
> > 	};
> > 
> > There is no expectation from either DT description to use in-band
> > autoneg or not.
> > 
> > The fact that of_phy_is_fixed_link() was made by Stas Sergeev to say
> > that a 'managed' link with the value != 'auto' is fixed prompted me to
> > study exactly what those changes were about.
> 
> From what I can see, there is no formal definition of "in-band-status"
> beyond what it says on the tin. The description in the DT binding
> specification, which is really where this should be formally documented,
> is totally lacking.
> 
> >     This patch introduces the new string property 'managed' that allows
> >     the user to set the management type explicitly.
> >     The supported values are:
> >     "auto" - default. Uses either MDIO or nothing, depending on the presence
> >     of the fixed-link node
> >     "in-band-status" - use in-band status
> 
> This, and how this is implemented by mvneta, is the best we have to go
> on for the meaning of this.
> 
> > This is why I am asking whether there is any formal definition of what
> > managed = "in-band-status" means. You've said it means about retrieving
> > link status from the PCS. What are you basing upon when you are saying that?
> 
> Given that this managed property was introduced for mvneta, mvneta's
> implementation of it is the best reference we have to work out what
> the intentions of it were beyond the commit text.
> 
> With in-band mode enabled, mvneta makes use of a fixed-link PHY, and
> updates the fixed-link PHY with the status from its GMAC block (which
> is the combined PCS+MAC).
> 
> So, when in-band mode is specified, the results from SGMII or 1000base-X
> negotiation are read from the MAC side of the link, pushed into the
> fixed-PHY, which then are reflected back into the driver via the usual
> phylib adjust_link().
> 
> Have a read through mvneta's code at this commit:
> 
> git show 2eecb2e04abb62ef8ea7b43e1a46bdb5b99d1bf8:drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c
> 
> specifically, mvneta_fixed_link_update() and mvneta_adjust_link().
> Note that when operating in in-band mode, there is actually no need
> for the configuration of MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG to be touched
> in any way since the values read from the MVNETA_GMAC_STATUS register
> indicate what parameters the MAC is actually using. (The speed,
> duplex, and pause bits in AUTONEG_CONFIG are ignored anyway if AN
> is enabled.)

I view this as just an implementation detail and not as something that
influences what managed = "in-band-status" is supposed to mean.

> I know this is rather wooly, but not everything is defined in black and
> white, and we need to do the best we can with the information that is
> available.

So mvneta at the stage of the commit you've mentioned calls
mvneta_set_autoneg() with the value of pp->use_inband_status. There is
then the exception to be made for the PCS being what's exposed to the
medium, and in that case, ethtool may also override the pp->use_inband_status
variable (which in turn affects the autoneg).

So if we take mvneta at this commit as the reference, what we learn is
that using in-band status essentially depends on using in-band autoneg
in the first place.

What is hard for me to comprehend is how we ever came to conclude that
for SERDES protocols where clause 37 is possible (2500base-x should be
part of this group), managed = "in-band-status" does not imply in-band
autoneg, considering the mvneta precedent.
And why would we essentially redefine its meaning by stating that no,
it is only about the status, not about the autoneg, even though the
status comes from the autoneg for these protocols.

There is a separate discussion to be had about SERDES protocols without
clause 37 AN (10GBase-R), I don't want to go there just yet, I want to
concentrate on what's similar to what mvneta originally supported.

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:44:17PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 01:52:38PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 09:28:08AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:36:45AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:14:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > > > > So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> > > > > > > the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> > > > > > > presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> > > > > > > mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
> > > > > > answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
> > > > > > autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
> > > > > > has nothing to do with that decision. Right?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think we're getting a little too het up over this.
> > > > 
> > > > No, I think it's relevant to this patch set.
> > > > 
> > > > > We have 1000base-X where, when we're not using in-band-status, we don't
> > > > > use autoneg (some drivers that weren't caught in review annoyingly do
> > > > > still use autoneg, but they shouldn't). We ignore the ethtool autoneg
> > > > > bit.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We also have 1000base-X where we're using in-band-status, and we then
> > > > > respect the ethtool autoneg bit.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, wouldn't it be logical if 2500base-X were implemented the same way,
> > > > > and on setups where 2500base-X does not support clause 37 AN, we
> > > > > clear the ethtool autoneg bit? If we have 2500base-X being used as the
> > > > > media link, surely this is the right behaviour?
> > > > 
> > > > The ethtool autoneg bit is only relevant when the PCS is the last thing
> > > > before the medium. But if the SERDES protocol connects the MAC to the PHY,
> > > > or the MAC to another MAC (such as the case here, CPU or DSA ports),
> > > > there won't be any ethtool bit to take into consideration, and that's
> > > > where my question is. Is there any expected correlation between enabling
> > > > in-band autoneg and the presence or absence of managed = "in-band-status"?
> > > 
> > > This topic is something I was looking at back in November 2021, trying
> > > to work out what the most sensible way of indicating to a PCS whether
> > > it should enable in-band or not:
> > > 
> > > http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e4ea7d035e7e04e87dfd86702f59952e0cecc18d
> > > http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e454bf101fa457dd5c2cea0b1aaab7ba33048089
> > > http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=e2c57490f205ae7c0e11fcf756675937f933be5e
> > > 
> > > The intention there was to move the decision about whether a PCS should
> > > enable autoneg out of the PCS and into phylink, but doing that one comes
> > > immediately on the problem of (e.g.) Marvell NETA/PP2 vs Lynx having
> > > different interpretations for 2500base-X. There are also a number of
> > > drivers that do not follow MLO_AN_INBAND-means-use-inband or not for
> > > things such as SGMII or 1000base-X.
> > > 
> > > This means we have no standard interpretation amongst phylink users
> > > about when in-band signalling should be enabled or disabled, which
> > > means moving that decision into phylink today isn't possible.
> > > 
> > > The only thing we could do is provide the PCS with an additional bit
> > > of information so it can make the decision - something like a boolean
> > > "pcs_connects_to_medium" flag, and keep the decision making in the
> > > PCS-specific code - sadly keeping the variability between different
> > > PCS implementations.
> > 
> > The way I understand what you're saying is that there is no guarantee
> > that the DSA master and CPU port will agree whether to use in-band
> > autoneg or not here (and implicitly, there is no guarantee that this
> > link will work):
> > 
> > 	&eth0 {
> > 		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> > 		managed = "in-band-status";
> > 	};
> > 
> > 	&switch_cpu_port {
> > 		ethernet = <&eth0>;
> > 		phy-mode = "25000base-x";
> 
> I'll assume that 25000 is a typo.

typo.

> > 		managed = "in-band-status";
> > 	};
> 
> Today, there is no guarantee - because it depends on how people have
> chosen to implement 2500base-X, and whether the hardware requires the
> use of in-band AN or prohibits it. This is what happens when stuff
> isn't standardised - one ends up with differing implementations doing
> different things, and this has happened not _only_ at hardware level
> but also software level as well.
> 
> You have to also throw into this that various implementations also have
> an "AN bypass" flag, which means if they see what looks like a valid
> SERDES data stream, but do not see the AN data, after a certain timeout
> they allow the link to come up - and again, whether that is enabled or
> not is pot luck today.

Interesting. After the timeout expires, does the lane ever transition
back into the encoding required for AN mode, in case there appears at a
later time someone willing to negotiate?

> > similarly, there is a good chance that the DT description below might
> > result in a functional link:
> > 
> > 	&eth0 {
> > 		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> > 		managed = "in-band-status";
> > 	};
> > 
> > 	&switch_cpu_port {
> > 		ethernet = <&eth0>;
> > 		phy-mode = "25000base-x";
> > 
> > 		fixed-link {
> > 			speed = <2500>;
> > 			full-duplex;
> > 		};
> > 	};
> > 
> > There is no expectation from either DT description to use in-band
> > autoneg or not.
> > 
> > The fact that of_phy_is_fixed_link() was made by Stas Sergeev to say
> > that a 'managed' link with the value != 'auto' is fixed prompted me to
> > study exactly what those changes were about.
> 
> From what I can see, there is no formal definition of "in-band-status"
> beyond what it says on the tin. The description in the DT binding
> specification, which is really where this should be formally documented,
> is totally lacking.
> 
> >     This patch introduces the new string property 'managed' that allows
> >     the user to set the management type explicitly.
> >     The supported values are:
> >     "auto" - default. Uses either MDIO or nothing, depending on the presence
> >     of the fixed-link node
> >     "in-band-status" - use in-band status
> 
> This, and how this is implemented by mvneta, is the best we have to go
> on for the meaning of this.
> 
> > This is why I am asking whether there is any formal definition of what
> > managed = "in-band-status" means. You've said it means about retrieving
> > link status from the PCS. What are you basing upon when you are saying that?
> 
> Given that this managed property was introduced for mvneta, mvneta's
> implementation of it is the best reference we have to work out what
> the intentions of it were beyond the commit text.
> 
> With in-band mode enabled, mvneta makes use of a fixed-link PHY, and
> updates the fixed-link PHY with the status from its GMAC block (which
> is the combined PCS+MAC).
> 
> So, when in-band mode is specified, the results from SGMII or 1000base-X
> negotiation are read from the MAC side of the link, pushed into the
> fixed-PHY, which then are reflected back into the driver via the usual
> phylib adjust_link().
> 
> Have a read through mvneta's code at this commit:
> 
> git show 2eecb2e04abb62ef8ea7b43e1a46bdb5b99d1bf8:drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c
> 
> specifically, mvneta_fixed_link_update() and mvneta_adjust_link().
> Note that when operating in in-band mode, there is actually no need
> for the configuration of MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG to be touched
> in any way since the values read from the MVNETA_GMAC_STATUS register
> indicate what parameters the MAC is actually using. (The speed,
> duplex, and pause bits in AUTONEG_CONFIG are ignored anyway if AN
> is enabled.)

I view this as just an implementation detail and not as something that
influences what managed = "in-band-status" is supposed to mean.

> I know this is rather wooly, but not everything is defined in black and
> white, and we need to do the best we can with the information that is
> available.

So mvneta at the stage of the commit you've mentioned calls
mvneta_set_autoneg() with the value of pp->use_inband_status. There is
then the exception to be made for the PCS being what's exposed to the
medium, and in that case, ethtool may also override the pp->use_inband_status
variable (which in turn affects the autoneg).

So if we take mvneta at this commit as the reference, what we learn is
that using in-band status essentially depends on using in-band autoneg
in the first place.

What is hard for me to comprehend is how we ever came to conclude that
for SERDES protocols where clause 37 is possible (2500base-x should be
part of this group), managed = "in-band-status" does not imply in-band
autoneg, considering the mvneta precedent.
And why would we essentially redefine its meaning by stating that no,
it is only about the status, not about the autoneg, even though the
status comes from the autoneg for these protocols.

There is a separate discussion to be had about SERDES protocols without
clause 37 AN (10GBase-R), I don't want to go there just yet, I want to
concentrate on what's similar to what mvneta originally supported.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Marek Behún]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 21:22:16 +0300
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 07:21:45PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> > Marvell documentation says that 2500base-x does not implement inband
> > AN.  
> 
> Does Marvell documentation actually call it 2500base-x when it says it
> doesn't support in-band autoneg?

Yes, it does.

> > But when it was first implemented, for some reason it was thought that
> > 2500base-x is just 1000base-x at 2.5x speed, and 1000base-x does
> > support inband AN. Also it worked during tests for both switches and
> > SOC NICs, so it was enabled.
> > 
> > At the time 2500base-x was not standardized. Now 2500base-x is
> > stanradrized, and the standard says that 2500base-x does not support
> > clause 37 AN. I guess this is because where it is used, it is intended
> > to work with clause 73 AN somehow.  
> 
> When you say 2500base-x is standardized, do you mean there is a document
> somewhere which I could use to read more about this?

IEEE Std 802.3cb-2018: Amendment 1: Physical Layer Specifications and
Management Parameters for 2.5 Gb/s and 5 Gb/s Operation over Backplane.

Annex 127A (informative): Compatibility of 2.5GBASE-X PCS/PMA with
1000BASE-X PCS/PMA running 2.5 times faster

  ...
  This annex discusses the restrictions when operating 2.5GBASE-X
  PCS/PMA with a 1000BASE-X PCS/PMA link partner running 2.5 times
  faster. Compatibility of the PMD is outside the scope of this annex.
  In this annex when 1000BASE-X PCS/PMA is referred to, the 2.5 times
  speed up is implied.
  ...
  The 2.5GBASE-X PCS does not support Clause 37 Auto-Negotiation.
  Hence, the 1000BASE-X PCS is expected to have its Clause 37
  Auto-Negotiation functionality disabled so that the /C/ ordered set
  will not be transmitted. If a 2.5GBASE-X PCS receives /C/ ordered
  set, then undefined behavior may occur.
  ...

Marek

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Marek Behún]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 21:22:16 +0300
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 07:21:45PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> > Marvell documentation says that 2500base-x does not implement inband
> > AN.  
> 
> Does Marvell documentation actually call it 2500base-x when it says it
> doesn't support in-band autoneg?

Yes, it does.

> > But when it was first implemented, for some reason it was thought that
> > 2500base-x is just 1000base-x at 2.5x speed, and 1000base-x does
> > support inband AN. Also it worked during tests for both switches and
> > SOC NICs, so it was enabled.
> > 
> > At the time 2500base-x was not standardized. Now 2500base-x is
> > stanradrized, and the standard says that 2500base-x does not support
> > clause 37 AN. I guess this is because where it is used, it is intended
> > to work with clause 73 AN somehow.  
> 
> When you say 2500base-x is standardized, do you mean there is a document
> somewhere which I could use to read more about this?

IEEE Std 802.3cb-2018: Amendment 1: Physical Layer Specifications and
Management Parameters for 2.5 Gb/s and 5 Gb/s Operation over Backplane.

Annex 127A (informative): Compatibility of 2.5GBASE-X PCS/PMA with
1000BASE-X PCS/PMA running 2.5 times faster

  ...
  This annex discusses the restrictions when operating 2.5GBASE-X
  PCS/PMA with a 1000BASE-X PCS/PMA link partner running 2.5 times
  faster. Compatibility of the PMD is outside the scope of this annex.
  In this annex when 1000BASE-X PCS/PMA is referred to, the 2.5 times
  speed up is implied.
  ...
  The 2.5GBASE-X PCS does not support Clause 37 Auto-Negotiation.
  Hence, the 1000BASE-X PCS is expected to have its Clause 37
  Auto-Negotiation functionality disabled so that the /C/ ordered set
  will not be transmitted. If a 2.5GBASE-X PCS receives /C/ ordered
  set, then undefined behavior may occur.
  ...

Marek

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 03:46:29PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:44:17PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > Today, there is no guarantee - because it depends on how people have
> > chosen to implement 2500base-X, and whether the hardware requires the
> > use of in-band AN or prohibits it. This is what happens when stuff
> > isn't standardised - one ends up with differing implementations doing
> > different things, and this has happened not _only_ at hardware level
> > but also software level as well.
> > 
> > You have to also throw into this that various implementations also have
> > an "AN bypass" flag, which means if they see what looks like a valid
> > SERDES data stream, but do not see the AN data, after a certain timeout
> > they allow the link to come up - and again, whether that is enabled or
> > not is pot luck today.
> 
> Interesting. After the timeout expires, does the lane ever transition
> back into the encoding required for AN mode, in case there appears at a
> later time someone willing to negotiate?

They don't document that it does.

> > > similarly, there is a good chance that the DT description below might
> > > result in a functional link:
> > > 
> > > 	&eth0 {
> > > 		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> > > 		managed = "in-band-status";
> > > 	};
> > > 
> > > 	&switch_cpu_port {
> > > 		ethernet = <&eth0>;
> > > 		phy-mode = "25000base-x";
> > > 
> > > 		fixed-link {
> > > 			speed = <2500>;
> > > 			full-duplex;
> > > 		};
> > > 	};
> > > 
> > > There is no expectation from either DT description to use in-band
> > > autoneg or not.
> > > 
> > > The fact that of_phy_is_fixed_link() was made by Stas Sergeev to say
> > > that a 'managed' link with the value != 'auto' is fixed prompted me to
> > > study exactly what those changes were about.
> > 
> > From what I can see, there is no formal definition of "in-band-status"
> > beyond what it says on the tin. The description in the DT binding
> > specification, which is really where this should be formally documented,
> > is totally lacking.
> > 
> > >     This patch introduces the new string property 'managed' that allows
> > >     the user to set the management type explicitly.
> > >     The supported values are:
> > >     "auto" - default. Uses either MDIO or nothing, depending on the presence
> > >     of the fixed-link node
> > >     "in-band-status" - use in-band status
> > 
> > This, and how this is implemented by mvneta, is the best we have to go
> > on for the meaning of this.
> > 
> > > This is why I am asking whether there is any formal definition of what
> > > managed = "in-band-status" means. You've said it means about retrieving
> > > link status from the PCS. What are you basing upon when you are saying that?
> > 
> > Given that this managed property was introduced for mvneta, mvneta's
> > implementation of it is the best reference we have to work out what
> > the intentions of it were beyond the commit text.
> > 
> > With in-band mode enabled, mvneta makes use of a fixed-link PHY, and
> > updates the fixed-link PHY with the status from its GMAC block (which
> > is the combined PCS+MAC).
> > 
> > So, when in-band mode is specified, the results from SGMII or 1000base-X
> > negotiation are read from the MAC side of the link, pushed into the
> > fixed-PHY, which then are reflected back into the driver via the usual
> > phylib adjust_link().
> > 
> > Have a read through mvneta's code at this commit:
> > 
> > git show 2eecb2e04abb62ef8ea7b43e1a46bdb5b99d1bf8:drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c
> > 
> > specifically, mvneta_fixed_link_update() and mvneta_adjust_link().
> > Note that when operating in in-band mode, there is actually no need
> > for the configuration of MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG to be touched
> > in any way since the values read from the MVNETA_GMAC_STATUS register
> > indicate what parameters the MAC is actually using. (The speed,
> > duplex, and pause bits in AUTONEG_CONFIG are ignored anyway if AN
> > is enabled.)
> 
> I view this as just an implementation detail and not as something that
> influences what managed = "in-band-status" is supposed to mean.
> 
> > I know this is rather wooly, but not everything is defined in black and
> > white, and we need to do the best we can with the information that is
> > available.
> 
> So mvneta at the stage of the commit you've mentioned calls
> mvneta_set_autoneg() with the value of pp->use_inband_status. There is
> then the exception to be made for the PCS being what's exposed to the
> medium, and in that case, ethtool may also override the pp->use_inband_status
> variable (which in turn affects the autoneg).
> 
> So if we take mvneta at this commit as the reference, what we learn is
> that using in-band status essentially depends on using in-band autoneg
> in the first place.
> 
> What is hard for me to comprehend is how we ever came to conclude that
> for SERDES protocols where clause 37 is possible (2500base-x should be
> part of this group), managed = "in-band-status" does not imply in-band
> autoneg, considering the mvneta precedent.

That is a recent addition, since the argument was made that when using
a 1000base-X fibre transceiver, using ethtool to disable autoneg is a
reasonable thing to do - and something that was supported with
mvneta_ethtool_set_link_ksettings() as it stands at the point in the
commit above.

> And why would we essentially redefine its meaning by stating that no,
> it is only about the status, not about the autoneg, even though the
> status comes from the autoneg for these protocols.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at there.

Going back to the mvneta combined PCS+MAC implementation, we read the
link parameters from the PCS when operating in in-band mode and throw
them at the fixed PHY so that ethtool works, along with all the usual
link up/down state reporting, carrier etc.

If autoneg is disabled, then we effectively operate in fixed-link mode
(use_inband_status becomes false, and we start forcing the link up/down
and also force the speed and duplex parameters by disabling autoneg.)

Note that this version of mvneta does not support 1000base-X mode, only
SGMII is actually supported.

There's a few things that are rather confusing in the driver:

MVNETA_GMAC_INBAND_AN_ENABLE - this controls whether in-band negotiation
is performed or not.
MVNETA_GMAC_AN_SPEED_EN - this controls whether the result of in-band
negotiation for speed is used, or the manually programmed speed in this
register.
MVNETA_GMAC_AN_DUPLEX_EN - same for duplex.
MVNETA_GMAC_AN_FLOW_CTRL_EN - same for pause (only symmetric pause is
supported)

MVNETA_GMAC2_INBAND_AN_ENABLE - misnamed, it selects whether SGMII (set)
or 1000base-X (unset) format for the 16-bit control word is used.

There is another bit in MVNETA_GMAC_CTRL_0 that selects between
1000base-X and SGMII operation mode, and when this bit is set for
1000base-X. This version of the driver doesn't support 1000base-X,
so this bit is never set.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 03:46:29PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:44:17PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > Today, there is no guarantee - because it depends on how people have
> > chosen to implement 2500base-X, and whether the hardware requires the
> > use of in-band AN or prohibits it. This is what happens when stuff
> > isn't standardised - one ends up with differing implementations doing
> > different things, and this has happened not _only_ at hardware level
> > but also software level as well.
> > 
> > You have to also throw into this that various implementations also have
> > an "AN bypass" flag, which means if they see what looks like a valid
> > SERDES data stream, but do not see the AN data, after a certain timeout
> > they allow the link to come up - and again, whether that is enabled or
> > not is pot luck today.
> 
> Interesting. After the timeout expires, does the lane ever transition
> back into the encoding required for AN mode, in case there appears at a
> later time someone willing to negotiate?

They don't document that it does.

> > > similarly, there is a good chance that the DT description below might
> > > result in a functional link:
> > > 
> > > 	&eth0 {
> > > 		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> > > 		managed = "in-band-status";
> > > 	};
> > > 
> > > 	&switch_cpu_port {
> > > 		ethernet = <&eth0>;
> > > 		phy-mode = "25000base-x";
> > > 
> > > 		fixed-link {
> > > 			speed = <2500>;
> > > 			full-duplex;
> > > 		};
> > > 	};
> > > 
> > > There is no expectation from either DT description to use in-band
> > > autoneg or not.
> > > 
> > > The fact that of_phy_is_fixed_link() was made by Stas Sergeev to say
> > > that a 'managed' link with the value != 'auto' is fixed prompted me to
> > > study exactly what those changes were about.
> > 
> > From what I can see, there is no formal definition of "in-band-status"
> > beyond what it says on the tin. The description in the DT binding
> > specification, which is really where this should be formally documented,
> > is totally lacking.
> > 
> > >     This patch introduces the new string property 'managed' that allows
> > >     the user to set the management type explicitly.
> > >     The supported values are:
> > >     "auto" - default. Uses either MDIO or nothing, depending on the presence
> > >     of the fixed-link node
> > >     "in-band-status" - use in-band status
> > 
> > This, and how this is implemented by mvneta, is the best we have to go
> > on for the meaning of this.
> > 
> > > This is why I am asking whether there is any formal definition of what
> > > managed = "in-band-status" means. You've said it means about retrieving
> > > link status from the PCS. What are you basing upon when you are saying that?
> > 
> > Given that this managed property was introduced for mvneta, mvneta's
> > implementation of it is the best reference we have to work out what
> > the intentions of it were beyond the commit text.
> > 
> > With in-band mode enabled, mvneta makes use of a fixed-link PHY, and
> > updates the fixed-link PHY with the status from its GMAC block (which
> > is the combined PCS+MAC).
> > 
> > So, when in-band mode is specified, the results from SGMII or 1000base-X
> > negotiation are read from the MAC side of the link, pushed into the
> > fixed-PHY, which then are reflected back into the driver via the usual
> > phylib adjust_link().
> > 
> > Have a read through mvneta's code at this commit:
> > 
> > git show 2eecb2e04abb62ef8ea7b43e1a46bdb5b99d1bf8:drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c
> > 
> > specifically, mvneta_fixed_link_update() and mvneta_adjust_link().
> > Note that when operating in in-band mode, there is actually no need
> > for the configuration of MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG to be touched
> > in any way since the values read from the MVNETA_GMAC_STATUS register
> > indicate what parameters the MAC is actually using. (The speed,
> > duplex, and pause bits in AUTONEG_CONFIG are ignored anyway if AN
> > is enabled.)
> 
> I view this as just an implementation detail and not as something that
> influences what managed = "in-band-status" is supposed to mean.
> 
> > I know this is rather wooly, but not everything is defined in black and
> > white, and we need to do the best we can with the information that is
> > available.
> 
> So mvneta at the stage of the commit you've mentioned calls
> mvneta_set_autoneg() with the value of pp->use_inband_status. There is
> then the exception to be made for the PCS being what's exposed to the
> medium, and in that case, ethtool may also override the pp->use_inband_status
> variable (which in turn affects the autoneg).
> 
> So if we take mvneta at this commit as the reference, what we learn is
> that using in-band status essentially depends on using in-band autoneg
> in the first place.
> 
> What is hard for me to comprehend is how we ever came to conclude that
> for SERDES protocols where clause 37 is possible (2500base-x should be
> part of this group), managed = "in-band-status" does not imply in-band
> autoneg, considering the mvneta precedent.

That is a recent addition, since the argument was made that when using
a 1000base-X fibre transceiver, using ethtool to disable autoneg is a
reasonable thing to do - and something that was supported with
mvneta_ethtool_set_link_ksettings() as it stands at the point in the
commit above.

> And why would we essentially redefine its meaning by stating that no,
> it is only about the status, not about the autoneg, even though the
> status comes from the autoneg for these protocols.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at there.

Going back to the mvneta combined PCS+MAC implementation, we read the
link parameters from the PCS when operating in in-band mode and throw
them at the fixed PHY so that ethtool works, along with all the usual
link up/down state reporting, carrier etc.

If autoneg is disabled, then we effectively operate in fixed-link mode
(use_inband_status becomes false, and we start forcing the link up/down
and also force the speed and duplex parameters by disabling autoneg.)

Note that this version of mvneta does not support 1000base-X mode, only
SGMII is actually supported.

There's a few things that are rather confusing in the driver:

MVNETA_GMAC_INBAND_AN_ENABLE - this controls whether in-band negotiation
is performed or not.
MVNETA_GMAC_AN_SPEED_EN - this controls whether the result of in-band
negotiation for speed is used, or the manually programmed speed in this
register.
MVNETA_GMAC_AN_DUPLEX_EN - same for duplex.
MVNETA_GMAC_AN_FLOW_CTRL_EN - same for pause (only symmetric pause is
supported)

MVNETA_GMAC2_INBAND_AN_ENABLE - misnamed, it selects whether SGMII (set)
or 1000base-X (unset) format for the 16-bit control word is used.

There is another bit in MVNETA_GMAC_CTRL_0 that selects between
1000base-X and SGMII operation mode, and when this bit is set for
1000base-X. This version of the driver doesn't support 1000base-X,
so this bit is never set.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Andrew Lunn]

> > The way I understand what you're saying is that there is no guarantee
> > that the DSA master and CPU port will agree whether to use in-band
> > autoneg or not here (and implicitly, there is no guarantee that this
> > link will work):
> > 
> > 	&eth0 {
> > 		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> > 		managed = "in-band-status";
> > 	};
> > 
> > 	&switch_cpu_port {
> > 		ethernet = <&eth0>;
> > 		phy-mode = "25000base-x";
> 
> I'll assume that 25000 is a typo.
> 
> > 		managed = "in-band-status";
> > 	};
> 
> Today, there is no guarantee - because it depends on how people have
> chosen to implement 2500base-X, and whether the hardware requires the
> use of in-band AN or prohibits it.

In practice, a Marvell MAC and a Marvell switch are likely to work,
since Marvell produce and tested both ends. I would expect this to be
true for any vendor. It is only going to be a problem when you have
devices from different vendors. And they have different
interpretations of what 2500Base-X is.

So far, mixed vendor systems tend to be

1) Freescale FEC and Marvell switches, and the FEC it still only 1G RGMII
2) The smaller simpler devices which are 1G and do not yet use a SERDES.

So this might be a future problem we will have, as more devices start
supporting 2.5G and 5G, but hopefully those future devices follow the
standard.

	Andrew

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Andrew Lunn]

> > The way I understand what you're saying is that there is no guarantee
> > that the DSA master and CPU port will agree whether to use in-band
> > autoneg or not here (and implicitly, there is no guarantee that this
> > link will work):
> > 
> > 	&eth0 {
> > 		phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> > 		managed = "in-band-status";
> > 	};
> > 
> > 	&switch_cpu_port {
> > 		ethernet = <&eth0>;
> > 		phy-mode = "25000base-x";
> 
> I'll assume that 25000 is a typo.
> 
> > 		managed = "in-band-status";
> > 	};
> 
> Today, there is no guarantee - because it depends on how people have
> chosen to implement 2500base-X, and whether the hardware requires the
> use of in-band AN or prohibits it.

In practice, a Marvell MAC and a Marvell switch are likely to work,
since Marvell produce and tested both ends. I would expect this to be
true for any vendor. It is only going to be a problem when you have
devices from different vendors. And they have different
interpretations of what 2500Base-X is.

So far, mixed vendor systems tend to be

1) Freescale FEC and Marvell switches, and the FEC it still only 1G RGMII
2) The smaller simpler devices which are 1G and do not yet use a SERDES.

So this might be a future problem we will have, as more devices start
supporting 2.5G and 5G, but hopefully those future devices follow the
standard.

	Andrew

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 02:59:36PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
>   The 2.5GBASE-X PCS does not support Clause 37 Auto-Negotiation.
>   Hence, the 1000BASE-X PCS is expected to have its Clause 37
>   Auto-Negotiation functionality disabled so that the /C/ ordered set
>   will not be transmitted. If a 2.5GBASE-X PCS receives /C/ ordered
>   set, then undefined behavior may occur.
>   ...

The reason that's probably stated is because there hasn't been any
standardisation of it, different implementations behave differently,
so they can't define a standard behaviour without breaking what's
already out there.

With mvneta, the reality is that the 2.5G speed is implemented by
changing the clock configuration in the COMPHY block (serdes) - which
basically clocks everything 2.5x faster. I seem to remember mvpp2 is
the same deal.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 02:59:36PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
>   The 2.5GBASE-X PCS does not support Clause 37 Auto-Negotiation.
>   Hence, the 1000BASE-X PCS is expected to have its Clause 37
>   Auto-Negotiation functionality disabled so that the /C/ ordered set
>   will not be transmitted. If a 2.5GBASE-X PCS receives /C/ ordered
>   set, then undefined behavior may occur.
>   ...

The reason that's probably stated is because there hasn't been any
standardisation of it, different implementations behave differently,
so they can't define a standard behaviour without breaking what's
already out there.

With mvneta, the reality is that the 2.5G speed is implemented by
changing the clock configuration in the COMPHY block (serdes) - which
basically clocks everything 2.5x faster. I seem to remember mvpp2 is
the same deal.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Marek Behún]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:23:18 +0100
"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 02:59:36PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> >   The 2.5GBASE-X PCS does not support Clause 37 Auto-Negotiation.
> >   Hence, the 1000BASE-X PCS is expected to have its Clause 37
> >   Auto-Negotiation functionality disabled so that the /C/ ordered set
> >   will not be transmitted. If a 2.5GBASE-X PCS receives /C/ ordered
> >   set, then undefined behavior may occur.
> >   ...  
> 
> The reason that's probably stated is because there hasn't been any
> standardisation of it, different implementations behave differently,
> so they can't define a standard behaviour without breaking what's
> already out there.

I think they are also considering clause 73 AN, which is supported with
1000base-KX (if I am not mistaken). Maybe the intention was to use
clause 73 with >1G speeds, and so they've forbid clause 37 on
2500base-x.

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Marek Behún]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:23:18 +0100
"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 02:59:36PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> >   The 2.5GBASE-X PCS does not support Clause 37 Auto-Negotiation.
> >   Hence, the 1000BASE-X PCS is expected to have its Clause 37
> >   Auto-Negotiation functionality disabled so that the /C/ ordered set
> >   will not be transmitted. If a 2.5GBASE-X PCS receives /C/ ordered
> >   set, then undefined behavior may occur.
> >   ...  
> 
> The reason that's probably stated is because there hasn't been any
> standardisation of it, different implementations behave differently,
> so they can't define a standard behaviour without breaking what's
> already out there.

I think they are also considering clause 73 AN, which is supported with
1000base-KX (if I am not mistaken). Maybe the intention was to use
clause 73 with >1G speeds, and so they've forbid clause 37 on
2500base-x.


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 02:16:04PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > So mvneta at the stage of the commit you've mentioned calls
> > mvneta_set_autoneg() with the value of pp->use_inband_status. There is
> > then the exception to be made for the PCS being what's exposed to the
> > medium, and in that case, ethtool may also override the pp->use_inband_status
> > variable (which in turn affects the autoneg).
> > 
> > So if we take mvneta at this commit as the reference, what we learn is
> > that using in-band status essentially depends on using in-band autoneg
> > in the first place.
> > 
> > What is hard for me to comprehend is how we ever came to conclude that
> > for SERDES protocols where clause 37 is possible (2500base-x should be
> > part of this group), managed = "in-band-status" does not imply in-band
> > autoneg, considering the mvneta precedent.
> 
> That is a recent addition, since the argument was made that when using
> a 1000base-X fibre transceiver, using ethtool to disable autoneg is a
> reasonable thing to do - and something that was supported with
> mvneta_ethtool_set_link_ksettings() as it stands at the point in the
> commit above.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. What is the recent addition, and recent
relative to what? The 2500base-x link mode? Ok, but this is only
tangentially related to the point overall, more below.

> > And why would we essentially redefine its meaning by stating that no,
> > it is only about the status, not about the autoneg, even though the
> > status comes from the autoneg for these protocols.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at there.

Sorry if I haven't made my point clear.

My point is that drivers may have more restrictive interpretations of
managed = "in-band-status", and the current logic of automatically
create a fixed-link for DSA's CPU ports is going to cause problems when
matched up with a DSA master that expects in-band autoneg for whatever
SERDES protocol.

What I'd like to happen as a result is that no DSA driver except Marvell
opts into this by default, and no driver opts into it without its maintainer
understanding the implications. Otherwise we're going to normalize the
expectation that a managed = "in-band-status" DSA master should be able
to interoperate with a fixed-link CPU port, but during this discussion
there was no argument being brought that a strict interpretation of
"in-band-status" as "enable autoneg" is incorrect in any way.

> Going back to the mvneta combined PCS+MAC implementation, we read the
> link parameters from the PCS when operating in in-band mode and throw
> them at the fixed PHY so that ethtool works, along with all the usual
> link up/down state reporting, carrier etc.
> 
> If autoneg is disabled, then we effectively operate in fixed-link mode
> (use_inband_status becomes false, and we start forcing the link up/down
> and also force the speed and duplex parameters by disabling autoneg.)
> 
> Note that this version of mvneta does not support 1000base-X mode, only
> SGMII is actually supported.
> 
> There's a few things that are rather confusing in the driver:
> 
> MVNETA_GMAC_INBAND_AN_ENABLE - this controls whether in-band negotiation
> is performed or not.
> MVNETA_GMAC_AN_SPEED_EN - this controls whether the result of in-band
> negotiation for speed is used, or the manually programmed speed in this
> register.
> MVNETA_GMAC_AN_DUPLEX_EN - same for duplex.
> MVNETA_GMAC_AN_FLOW_CTRL_EN - same for pause (only symmetric pause is
> supported)
> 
> MVNETA_GMAC2_INBAND_AN_ENABLE - misnamed, it selects whether SGMII (set)
> or 1000base-X (unset) format for the 16-bit control word is used.
> 
> There is another bit in MVNETA_GMAC_CTRL_0 that selects between
> 1000base-X and SGMII operation mode, and when this bit is set for
> 1000base-X. This version of the driver doesn't support 1000base-X,
> so this bit is never set.

Thanks for this explanation, if nothing else, it seems to support the
way in which I was interpreting managed = "in-band-status" to mean
"enable in-band autoneg", but to be clear, I wasn't debating something
about the way in which mvneta was doing things. But rather, I was
debating why would *other* drivers do things differently such as to come
to expect that a fixed-link master + an in-band-status CPU port, or the
other way around, may be compatible with each other.

Anyway, before I comment any further on the other points, I have a board
using armada-3720-turris-mox.dts on which I wanted to make a test, but I
don't fully understand the results, could you help me do so?

By default, both the mvneta master and my 6390 top-most switch are
configured for inband/2500base-x. In essence I'm perfectly fine with
that. I don't care whether IEEE standardized inband/2500base-x, as long
as both drivers come to expect to enable or disable inband depending on
the device tree.

I've dumped the variables from mvneta_pcs_get_state() and it appears
that the mvneta is reporting AN complete. This would suggest that there
is indeed in-band autoneg taking place with the 6390 switch.

Then I modified the device tree to disable in-band autoneg (I've checked
mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config and it behaves how I'd expect, enabling
BMCR_ANENABLE strictly according to phylink_autoneg_inband(mode)).
Essentially what I'm trying is to intentionally break in-band autoneg by
causing a mismatch, to prove that it is indeed taking place.

The results are interesting: state->an_complete is still reported as 1
for eth1 (mvneta).

ip link set eth1 up
[   70.809889] mvneta d0040000.ethernet eth1: configuring for inband/2500base-x link mode
[   70.818086] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b4c state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
[   70.836081] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b4c state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
[   70.843748] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Down
[   70.859944] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_ADVERTISE 0xa0 adv 0x80 changed 1
[   70.878737] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_BMCR 0x140 bmcr 0x140 phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) 0
[   70.898302] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Up - 2.5Gbps/Full - flow control off
[   71.069532] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b4c state->an_complete 1 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 1 state->duplex 1
[   71.083376] mvneta d0040000.ethernet eth1: Link is Up - 2.5Gbps/Full - flow control rx/tx
[   71.091672] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth1: link becomes ready

Then I studied MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG and I noticed that the bit
you're talking about, MVNETA_GMAC_AN_BYPASS_ENABLE (bit 3) is indeed set
by default (the driver doesn't set it).

I've intentionally masked it off in mvneta_pcs_config() by setting it in
the "mask" variable and nowhere else. Now I get:

ip link set eth1 up
[  434.336679] mvneta d0040000.ethernet eth1: configuring for inband/2500base-x link mode
[  434.342618] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Down
[  434.350020] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b44 state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
[  434.350055] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b44 state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
[  434.384794] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_ADVERTISE 0xa0 adv 0x80 changed 1
[  434.403808] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_BMCR 0x140 bmcr 0x140 phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) 0
[  434.423732] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Up - 2.5Gbps/Full - flow control off

so state->an_complete now remains zero, and the link is down on the CPU
port, and indeed I can no longer ping the board from the outside world.


So what this is telling me is that mvneta has some built-in resilience
to in-band autoneg mismatches, via MVNETA_GMAC_AN_BYPASS_ENABLE. But that
(a) doesn't make it valid to mix and match a fixed-link with a managed =
    "in-band-status" mode
(b) doesn't mean it's unspecified whether managed = "in-band-status"
    should dictate whether to enable in-band autoneg or not
(c) doesn't mean that other devices/drivers support "AN bypass" to save
    the day and make an invalid DT description appear to work just fine

This further supports my idea that we should make a better attempt of
matching the DSA master's mode with the node we're faking in DSA for
phylink. For Marvell hardware you or Andrew are surely more knowledgeable
to be able to say whether that's needed right now or not. But in the
general case please don't push this to everyone, it just muddies the
waters.

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 02:16:04PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > So mvneta at the stage of the commit you've mentioned calls
> > mvneta_set_autoneg() with the value of pp->use_inband_status. There is
> > then the exception to be made for the PCS being what's exposed to the
> > medium, and in that case, ethtool may also override the pp->use_inband_status
> > variable (which in turn affects the autoneg).
> > 
> > So if we take mvneta at this commit as the reference, what we learn is
> > that using in-band status essentially depends on using in-band autoneg
> > in the first place.
> > 
> > What is hard for me to comprehend is how we ever came to conclude that
> > for SERDES protocols where clause 37 is possible (2500base-x should be
> > part of this group), managed = "in-band-status" does not imply in-band
> > autoneg, considering the mvneta precedent.
> 
> That is a recent addition, since the argument was made that when using
> a 1000base-X fibre transceiver, using ethtool to disable autoneg is a
> reasonable thing to do - and something that was supported with
> mvneta_ethtool_set_link_ksettings() as it stands at the point in the
> commit above.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. What is the recent addition, and recent
relative to what? The 2500base-x link mode? Ok, but this is only
tangentially related to the point overall, more below.

> > And why would we essentially redefine its meaning by stating that no,
> > it is only about the status, not about the autoneg, even though the
> > status comes from the autoneg for these protocols.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at there.

Sorry if I haven't made my point clear.

My point is that drivers may have more restrictive interpretations of
managed = "in-band-status", and the current logic of automatically
create a fixed-link for DSA's CPU ports is going to cause problems when
matched up with a DSA master that expects in-band autoneg for whatever
SERDES protocol.

What I'd like to happen as a result is that no DSA driver except Marvell
opts into this by default, and no driver opts into it without its maintainer
understanding the implications. Otherwise we're going to normalize the
expectation that a managed = "in-band-status" DSA master should be able
to interoperate with a fixed-link CPU port, but during this discussion
there was no argument being brought that a strict interpretation of
"in-band-status" as "enable autoneg" is incorrect in any way.

> Going back to the mvneta combined PCS+MAC implementation, we read the
> link parameters from the PCS when operating in in-band mode and throw
> them at the fixed PHY so that ethtool works, along with all the usual
> link up/down state reporting, carrier etc.
> 
> If autoneg is disabled, then we effectively operate in fixed-link mode
> (use_inband_status becomes false, and we start forcing the link up/down
> and also force the speed and duplex parameters by disabling autoneg.)
> 
> Note that this version of mvneta does not support 1000base-X mode, only
> SGMII is actually supported.
> 
> There's a few things that are rather confusing in the driver:
> 
> MVNETA_GMAC_INBAND_AN_ENABLE - this controls whether in-band negotiation
> is performed or not.
> MVNETA_GMAC_AN_SPEED_EN - this controls whether the result of in-band
> negotiation for speed is used, or the manually programmed speed in this
> register.
> MVNETA_GMAC_AN_DUPLEX_EN - same for duplex.
> MVNETA_GMAC_AN_FLOW_CTRL_EN - same for pause (only symmetric pause is
> supported)
> 
> MVNETA_GMAC2_INBAND_AN_ENABLE - misnamed, it selects whether SGMII (set)
> or 1000base-X (unset) format for the 16-bit control word is used.
> 
> There is another bit in MVNETA_GMAC_CTRL_0 that selects between
> 1000base-X and SGMII operation mode, and when this bit is set for
> 1000base-X. This version of the driver doesn't support 1000base-X,
> so this bit is never set.

Thanks for this explanation, if nothing else, it seems to support the
way in which I was interpreting managed = "in-band-status" to mean
"enable in-band autoneg", but to be clear, I wasn't debating something
about the way in which mvneta was doing things. But rather, I was
debating why would *other* drivers do things differently such as to come
to expect that a fixed-link master + an in-band-status CPU port, or the
other way around, may be compatible with each other.

Anyway, before I comment any further on the other points, I have a board
using armada-3720-turris-mox.dts on which I wanted to make a test, but I
don't fully understand the results, could you help me do so?

By default, both the mvneta master and my 6390 top-most switch are
configured for inband/2500base-x. In essence I'm perfectly fine with
that. I don't care whether IEEE standardized inband/2500base-x, as long
as both drivers come to expect to enable or disable inband depending on
the device tree.

I've dumped the variables from mvneta_pcs_get_state() and it appears
that the mvneta is reporting AN complete. This would suggest that there
is indeed in-band autoneg taking place with the 6390 switch.

Then I modified the device tree to disable in-band autoneg (I've checked
mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config and it behaves how I'd expect, enabling
BMCR_ANENABLE strictly according to phylink_autoneg_inband(mode)).
Essentially what I'm trying is to intentionally break in-band autoneg by
causing a mismatch, to prove that it is indeed taking place.

The results are interesting: state->an_complete is still reported as 1
for eth1 (mvneta).

ip link set eth1 up
[   70.809889] mvneta d0040000.ethernet eth1: configuring for inband/2500base-x link mode
[   70.818086] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b4c state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
[   70.836081] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b4c state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
[   70.843748] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Down
[   70.859944] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_ADVERTISE 0xa0 adv 0x80 changed 1
[   70.878737] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_BMCR 0x140 bmcr 0x140 phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) 0
[   70.898302] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Up - 2.5Gbps/Full - flow control off
[   71.069532] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b4c state->an_complete 1 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 1 state->duplex 1
[   71.083376] mvneta d0040000.ethernet eth1: Link is Up - 2.5Gbps/Full - flow control rx/tx
[   71.091672] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth1: link becomes ready

Then I studied MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG and I noticed that the bit
you're talking about, MVNETA_GMAC_AN_BYPASS_ENABLE (bit 3) is indeed set
by default (the driver doesn't set it).

I've intentionally masked it off in mvneta_pcs_config() by setting it in
the "mask" variable and nowhere else. Now I get:

ip link set eth1 up
[  434.336679] mvneta d0040000.ethernet eth1: configuring for inband/2500base-x link mode
[  434.342618] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Down
[  434.350020] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b44 state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
[  434.350055] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b44 state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
[  434.384794] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_ADVERTISE 0xa0 adv 0x80 changed 1
[  434.403808] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_BMCR 0x140 bmcr 0x140 phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) 0
[  434.423732] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Up - 2.5Gbps/Full - flow control off

so state->an_complete now remains zero, and the link is down on the CPU
port, and indeed I can no longer ping the board from the outside world.


So what this is telling me is that mvneta has some built-in resilience
to in-band autoneg mismatches, via MVNETA_GMAC_AN_BYPASS_ENABLE. But that
(a) doesn't make it valid to mix and match a fixed-link with a managed =
    "in-band-status" mode
(b) doesn't mean it's unspecified whether managed = "in-band-status"
    should dictate whether to enable in-band autoneg or not
(c) doesn't mean that other devices/drivers support "AN bypass" to save
    the day and make an invalid DT description appear to work just fine

This further supports my idea that we should make a better attempt of
matching the DSA master's mode with the node we're faking in DSA for
phylink. For Marvell hardware you or Andrew are surely more knowledgeable
to be able to say whether that's needed right now or not. But in the
general case please don't push this to everyone, it just muddies the
waters.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 07:56:00PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 02:16:04PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > So mvneta at the stage of the commit you've mentioned calls
> > > mvneta_set_autoneg() with the value of pp->use_inband_status. There is
> > > then the exception to be made for the PCS being what's exposed to the
> > > medium, and in that case, ethtool may also override the pp->use_inband_status
> > > variable (which in turn affects the autoneg).
> > > 
> > > So if we take mvneta at this commit as the reference, what we learn is
> > > that using in-band status essentially depends on using in-band autoneg
> > > in the first place.
> > > 
> > > What is hard for me to comprehend is how we ever came to conclude that
> > > for SERDES protocols where clause 37 is possible (2500base-x should be
> > > part of this group), managed = "in-band-status" does not imply in-band
> > > autoneg, considering the mvneta precedent.
> > 
> > That is a recent addition, since the argument was made that when using
> > a 1000base-X fibre transceiver, using ethtool to disable autoneg is a
> > reasonable thing to do - and something that was supported with
> > mvneta_ethtool_set_link_ksettings() as it stands at the point in the
> > commit above.
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't understand. What is the recent addition, and recent
> relative to what? The 2500base-x link mode? Ok, but this is only
> tangentially related to the point overall, more below.

I'm talking about how we handle 1000base-X autoneg - specifically this
commit:

92817dad7dcb net: phylink: Support disabling autonegotiation for PCS

where we can be in 1000base-X with managed = "in-band-status" but we
have autoneg disabled. I thought that is what you were referring to.

As for 2500base-X, I had been raising the issue of AN in the past, for
example (have I said it's really difficult to find old emails even with
google?):

https://lwn.net/ml/netdev/20200618140623.GC1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk/

and eventually I stopped caring about it, as it became pointless to
raise it anymore when we had an established mixture of behaviours. This
is why we have ended up with PCS drivers configuring for no AN for a
firmware description of:

	managed = "in-band-status";
	phy-mode = "2500base-x";

and hence now have unclean semantics for this - some such as mvneta
and mvpp2 will have AN enabled. Others such as pcs-lynx will not.
However, both will request link status from the PCS side and use that
to determine whether the link is up, and use the parameters that the
PCS code returns for the link. Since 2500base-X can only operate at
2.5G, PCS code always reports SPEED_2500, and as half duplex is
virtually never supported above 1G, DUPLEX_FULL.

> > > And why would we essentially redefine its meaning by stating that no,
> > > it is only about the status, not about the autoneg, even though the
> > > status comes from the autoneg for these protocols.
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at there.
> 
> Sorry if I haven't made my point clear.
> 
> My point is that drivers may have more restrictive interpretations of
> managed = "in-band-status", and the current logic of automatically
> create a fixed-link for DSA's CPU ports is going to cause problems when
> matched up with a DSA master that expects in-band autoneg for whatever
> SERDES protocol.
> 
> What I'd like to happen as a result is that no DSA driver except Marvell
> opts into this by default, and no driver opts into it without its maintainer
> understanding the implications. Otherwise we're going to normalize the
> expectation that a managed = "in-band-status" DSA master should be able
> to interoperate with a fixed-link CPU port, but during this discussion
> there was no argument being brought that a strict interpretation of
> "in-band-status" as "enable autoneg" is incorrect in any way.

I still don't understand your point - because you seem to be conflating
two different things (at least as I understand it.)

We have this:

		port@N {
			reg = <N>;
			label = "cpu";
			ethernet = <&ethX>;
		};

This specifies that the port operates at whatever interface mode and
settings gives the maximum speed. There is no mention of a "managed"
property, and therefore (Andrew, correct me if I'm wrong) in-band
negotiation is not expected to be used.

The configuration of the ethX parameters on the other end of the link
are up to the system integrator to get right, and the actual behaviour
would depend on the ethernet driver. As I've said in previous emails,
there is such a thing as "AN bypass" that can be implemented, and it
can default to be enabled, and drivers can ignore that such a bit even
exists. So, it's possible that even with "managed" set to
"in-band-status" in DT, a link to such a DSA switch will still come up
even though we've requested in DT for AN to be used.

If an ethernet driver is implemented to strictly require in-band AN in
this case, then the link won't come up, and the system integrator would
have to debug the problem.

I think this is actually true on Clearfog - if one specifies the CPU
port as I have above, and requests in-band on the host ethernet, then
the link doesn't come up, because mvneta turns off AN bypass.

> > Going back to the mvneta combined PCS+MAC implementation, we read the
> > link parameters from the PCS when operating in in-band mode and throw
> > them at the fixed PHY so that ethtool works, along with all the usual
> > link up/down state reporting, carrier etc.
> > 
> > If autoneg is disabled, then we effectively operate in fixed-link mode
> > (use_inband_status becomes false, and we start forcing the link up/down
> > and also force the speed and duplex parameters by disabling autoneg.)
> > 
> > Note that this version of mvneta does not support 1000base-X mode, only
> > SGMII is actually supported.
> > 
> > There's a few things that are rather confusing in the driver:
> > 
> > MVNETA_GMAC_INBAND_AN_ENABLE - this controls whether in-band negotiation
> > is performed or not.
> > MVNETA_GMAC_AN_SPEED_EN - this controls whether the result of in-band
> > negotiation for speed is used, or the manually programmed speed in this
> > register.
> > MVNETA_GMAC_AN_DUPLEX_EN - same for duplex.
> > MVNETA_GMAC_AN_FLOW_CTRL_EN - same for pause (only symmetric pause is
> > supported)
> > 
> > MVNETA_GMAC2_INBAND_AN_ENABLE - misnamed, it selects whether SGMII (set)
> > or 1000base-X (unset) format for the 16-bit control word is used.
> > 
> > There is another bit in MVNETA_GMAC_CTRL_0 that selects between
> > 1000base-X and SGMII operation mode, and when this bit is set for
> > 1000base-X. This version of the driver doesn't support 1000base-X,
> > so this bit is never set.
> 
> Thanks for this explanation, if nothing else, it seems to support the
> way in which I was interpreting managed = "in-band-status" to mean
> "enable in-band autoneg", but to be clear, I wasn't debating something
> about the way in which mvneta was doing things. But rather, I was
> debating why would *other* drivers do things differently such as to come
> to expect that a fixed-link master + an in-band-status CPU port, or the
> other way around, may be compatible with each other.

Please note that phylink makes a DT specification including both a
fixed-link descriptor and a managed in-band-status property illegal
because these are two different modes of operating the link, and they
conflict with each other.

The fact that the of_fixed_link_whateveritwas() function (sorry I can't
remember the name) returns true for both indicating that they're both
fixed-link is a historic artifact that has not been changed. As the
fixed-PHY code supporting that way was dropped, I suppose that should
have been cleaned up at some point, but I never got around to it
(remember, development in this space is a very slow process.) There
were always more pressing matters to be dealt with.

Maybe we should now make of_fixed_link_whateveritwas() no longer return
true, and introduce of_managed_in_band() or something like that which
drivers can test that separately. I'm not sure it's worth the driver
churn to make such a change, I'm not sure what the benefit would be.

> Anyway, before I comment any further on the other points, I have a board
> using armada-3720-turris-mox.dts on which I wanted to make a test, but I
> don't fully understand the results, could you help me do so?
> 
> By default, both the mvneta master and my 6390 top-most switch are
> configured for inband/2500base-x. In essence I'm perfectly fine with
> that. I don't care whether IEEE standardized inband/2500base-x, as long
> as both drivers come to expect to enable or disable inband depending on
> the device tree.
> 
> I've dumped the variables from mvneta_pcs_get_state() and it appears
> that the mvneta is reporting AN complete. This would suggest that there
> is indeed in-band autoneg taking place with the 6390 switch.
> 
> Then I modified the device tree to disable in-band autoneg (I've checked
> mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config and it behaves how I'd expect, enabling
> BMCR_ANENABLE strictly according to phylink_autoneg_inband(mode)).
> Essentially what I'm trying is to intentionally break in-band autoneg by
> causing a mismatch, to prove that it is indeed taking place.
> 
> The results are interesting: state->an_complete is still reported as 1
> for eth1 (mvneta).
> 
> ip link set eth1 up
> [   70.809889] mvneta d0040000.ethernet eth1: configuring for inband/2500base-x link mode
> [   70.818086] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b4c state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
> [   70.836081] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b4c state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
> [   70.843748] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Down
> [   70.859944] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_ADVERTISE 0xa0 adv 0x80 changed 1
> [   70.878737] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_BMCR 0x140 bmcr 0x140 phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) 0
> [   70.898302] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Up - 2.5Gbps/Full - flow control off
> [   71.069532] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b4c state->an_complete 1 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 1 state->duplex 1
> [   71.083376] mvneta d0040000.ethernet eth1: Link is Up - 2.5Gbps/Full - flow control rx/tx
> [   71.091672] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth1: link becomes ready
> 
> Then I studied MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG and I noticed that the bit
> you're talking about, MVNETA_GMAC_AN_BYPASS_ENABLE (bit 3) is indeed set
> by default (the driver doesn't set it).

Correct - because of history, and changing it could break setups that
have been working since before DT. The driver has never changed the
bypass bit, so playing with that when phylink was introduced risked
regressions.

> I've intentionally masked it off in mvneta_pcs_config() by setting it in
> the "mask" variable and nowhere else. Now I get:
> 
> ip link set eth1 up
> [  434.336679] mvneta d0040000.ethernet eth1: configuring for inband/2500base-x link mode
> [  434.342618] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Down
> [  434.350020] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b44 state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
> [  434.350055] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b44 state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
> [  434.384794] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_ADVERTISE 0xa0 adv 0x80 changed 1
> [  434.403808] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_BMCR 0x140 bmcr 0x140 phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) 0
> [  434.423732] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Up - 2.5Gbps/Full - flow control off
> 
> so state->an_complete now remains zero, and the link is down on the CPU
> port, and indeed I can no longer ping the board from the outside world.

We can see that the DSA switch thinks the link came up, but mvneta
didn't because autoneg never completed. We can see from the
MV88E6390_SGMII_BMCR value that AN is definitely disabled. So we
positively have one end of the link configured for no AN (a fixed
link) and the other side configured for AN.

That is expected with a strict and correct implementation. As you've
spotted, mvneta is not a strict implementation, because it defaults
to allowing bypass mode, which allows the dissimilar configuration
due to history.

However, what you will find is that you will get the same results
with or without these patches applied - because the DSA switch will
default to not using in-band AN on its CPU port, and that isn't
changed when the DSA port is brought up without phylink.

> So what this is telling me is that mvneta has some built-in resilience
> to in-band autoneg mismatches, via MVNETA_GMAC_AN_BYPASS_ENABLE. But that
> (a) doesn't make it valid to mix and match a fixed-link with a managed =
>     "in-band-status" mode
> (b) doesn't mean it's unspecified whether managed = "in-band-status"
>     should dictate whether to enable in-band autoneg or not
> (c) doesn't mean that other devices/drivers support "AN bypass" to save
>     the day and make an invalid DT description appear to work just fine
> 
> This further supports my idea that we should make a better attempt of
> matching the DSA master's mode with the node we're faking in DSA for
> phylink. For Marvell hardware you or Andrew are surely more knowledgeable
> to be able to say whether that's needed right now or not. But in the
> general case please don't push this to everyone, it just muddies the
> waters.

I really don't get this.

For a mv88e6xxx port which supports 1000base-X, with these patches
applied, then these are all effectively equivalent:

		port@N {
			reg = <N>;
			label = "cpu";
			ethernet = <&ethX>;
		};

		port@N {
			reg = <N>;
			label = "cpu";
			ethernet = <&ethX>;
			phy-mode = "1000base-x";
		};

		port@N {
			reg = <N>;
			label = "cpu";
			ethernet = <&ethX>;
			fixed-link {
				speed = <1000>;
				full-duplex;
			};
		};

		port@N {
			reg = <N>;
			label = "cpu";
			ethernet = <&ethX>;
			phy-mode = "1000base-x";
			fixed-link {
				speed = <1000>;
				full-duplex;
			};
		};

and all _should_ lead to inband AN being disabled.

That is my understanding of Andrew's statements on the defaulting
parameters for both the inter-switch and CPU ports. (Maybe Andrew can
clarify whether this is correct or not.)

However, this would not equivalent to any of the above:

		port@N {
			reg = <N>;
			label = "cpu";
			ethernet = <&ethX>;
			managed = "in-band-status";
		};

The reason this is not equivalent is - as you've recently spotted -
of_phy_is_fixed_link() will return true, and therefore phylink gets
passed the above node to work with - and we do not generate a swnode
fixed-link stanza for it. The behaviour in this case is completely
unaffected by these patches.

If a DSA driver defaults to AN enabled on the DSA/CPU ports, and makes
use of the defaulting firmware description, then this will break with
these patches, since we setup a fixed-link specifier that states that
no AN should be used. That's why I've been trying to get these tested,
and that's why there's a risk with them. However, that's got nothing
to do with whether the driver implements filling in this new
"default_interface" field.

We could go delving into the node pointed to by the phandle and retrieve
whatever parameters from there, but that is an entirely new behaviour
and would be a functional change to the behaviour that Andrew has been
promoting - and is itself not free of a risk of regressions caused by
that approach. What if there's an interface converter in the path between
the# CPU ethernet device and the DSA that hasn't needed to be described?
Digging out the phy-mode from the CPU side could be the wrong thing to
do.

Then there's the question whether DSA should have been validating that
the description on both ends of the link are compatible with each other.
The problem with that is just the same as the above - an undescribed
interface converter would make such validation problematical.

So, I don't think we could rely on the description on the other end of
the link to be capable of describing the setup on the DSA port end.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 07:56:00PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 02:16:04PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > So mvneta at the stage of the commit you've mentioned calls
> > > mvneta_set_autoneg() with the value of pp->use_inband_status. There is
> > > then the exception to be made for the PCS being what's exposed to the
> > > medium, and in that case, ethtool may also override the pp->use_inband_status
> > > variable (which in turn affects the autoneg).
> > > 
> > > So if we take mvneta at this commit as the reference, what we learn is
> > > that using in-band status essentially depends on using in-band autoneg
> > > in the first place.
> > > 
> > > What is hard for me to comprehend is how we ever came to conclude that
> > > for SERDES protocols where clause 37 is possible (2500base-x should be
> > > part of this group), managed = "in-band-status" does not imply in-band
> > > autoneg, considering the mvneta precedent.
> > 
> > That is a recent addition, since the argument was made that when using
> > a 1000base-X fibre transceiver, using ethtool to disable autoneg is a
> > reasonable thing to do - and something that was supported with
> > mvneta_ethtool_set_link_ksettings() as it stands at the point in the
> > commit above.
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't understand. What is the recent addition, and recent
> relative to what? The 2500base-x link mode? Ok, but this is only
> tangentially related to the point overall, more below.

I'm talking about how we handle 1000base-X autoneg - specifically this
commit:

92817dad7dcb net: phylink: Support disabling autonegotiation for PCS

where we can be in 1000base-X with managed = "in-band-status" but we
have autoneg disabled. I thought that is what you were referring to.

As for 2500base-X, I had been raising the issue of AN in the past, for
example (have I said it's really difficult to find old emails even with
google?):

https://lwn.net/ml/netdev/20200618140623.GC1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk/

and eventually I stopped caring about it, as it became pointless to
raise it anymore when we had an established mixture of behaviours. This
is why we have ended up with PCS drivers configuring for no AN for a
firmware description of:

	managed = "in-band-status";
	phy-mode = "2500base-x";

and hence now have unclean semantics for this - some such as mvneta
and mvpp2 will have AN enabled. Others such as pcs-lynx will not.
However, both will request link status from the PCS side and use that
to determine whether the link is up, and use the parameters that the
PCS code returns for the link. Since 2500base-X can only operate at
2.5G, PCS code always reports SPEED_2500, and as half duplex is
virtually never supported above 1G, DUPLEX_FULL.

> > > And why would we essentially redefine its meaning by stating that no,
> > > it is only about the status, not about the autoneg, even though the
> > > status comes from the autoneg for these protocols.
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at there.
> 
> Sorry if I haven't made my point clear.
> 
> My point is that drivers may have more restrictive interpretations of
> managed = "in-band-status", and the current logic of automatically
> create a fixed-link for DSA's CPU ports is going to cause problems when
> matched up with a DSA master that expects in-band autoneg for whatever
> SERDES protocol.
> 
> What I'd like to happen as a result is that no DSA driver except Marvell
> opts into this by default, and no driver opts into it without its maintainer
> understanding the implications. Otherwise we're going to normalize the
> expectation that a managed = "in-band-status" DSA master should be able
> to interoperate with a fixed-link CPU port, but during this discussion
> there was no argument being brought that a strict interpretation of
> "in-band-status" as "enable autoneg" is incorrect in any way.

I still don't understand your point - because you seem to be conflating
two different things (at least as I understand it.)

We have this:

		port@N {
			reg = <N>;
			label = "cpu";
			ethernet = <&ethX>;
		};

This specifies that the port operates at whatever interface mode and
settings gives the maximum speed. There is no mention of a "managed"
property, and therefore (Andrew, correct me if I'm wrong) in-band
negotiation is not expected to be used.

The configuration of the ethX parameters on the other end of the link
are up to the system integrator to get right, and the actual behaviour
would depend on the ethernet driver. As I've said in previous emails,
there is such a thing as "AN bypass" that can be implemented, and it
can default to be enabled, and drivers can ignore that such a bit even
exists. So, it's possible that even with "managed" set to
"in-band-status" in DT, a link to such a DSA switch will still come up
even though we've requested in DT for AN to be used.

If an ethernet driver is implemented to strictly require in-band AN in
this case, then the link won't come up, and the system integrator would
have to debug the problem.

I think this is actually true on Clearfog - if one specifies the CPU
port as I have above, and requests in-band on the host ethernet, then
the link doesn't come up, because mvneta turns off AN bypass.

> > Going back to the mvneta combined PCS+MAC implementation, we read the
> > link parameters from the PCS when operating in in-band mode and throw
> > them at the fixed PHY so that ethtool works, along with all the usual
> > link up/down state reporting, carrier etc.
> > 
> > If autoneg is disabled, then we effectively operate in fixed-link mode
> > (use_inband_status becomes false, and we start forcing the link up/down
> > and also force the speed and duplex parameters by disabling autoneg.)
> > 
> > Note that this version of mvneta does not support 1000base-X mode, only
> > SGMII is actually supported.
> > 
> > There's a few things that are rather confusing in the driver:
> > 
> > MVNETA_GMAC_INBAND_AN_ENABLE - this controls whether in-band negotiation
> > is performed or not.
> > MVNETA_GMAC_AN_SPEED_EN - this controls whether the result of in-band
> > negotiation for speed is used, or the manually programmed speed in this
> > register.
> > MVNETA_GMAC_AN_DUPLEX_EN - same for duplex.
> > MVNETA_GMAC_AN_FLOW_CTRL_EN - same for pause (only symmetric pause is
> > supported)
> > 
> > MVNETA_GMAC2_INBAND_AN_ENABLE - misnamed, it selects whether SGMII (set)
> > or 1000base-X (unset) format for the 16-bit control word is used.
> > 
> > There is another bit in MVNETA_GMAC_CTRL_0 that selects between
> > 1000base-X and SGMII operation mode, and when this bit is set for
> > 1000base-X. This version of the driver doesn't support 1000base-X,
> > so this bit is never set.
> 
> Thanks for this explanation, if nothing else, it seems to support the
> way in which I was interpreting managed = "in-band-status" to mean
> "enable in-band autoneg", but to be clear, I wasn't debating something
> about the way in which mvneta was doing things. But rather, I was
> debating why would *other* drivers do things differently such as to come
> to expect that a fixed-link master + an in-band-status CPU port, or the
> other way around, may be compatible with each other.

Please note that phylink makes a DT specification including both a
fixed-link descriptor and a managed in-band-status property illegal
because these are two different modes of operating the link, and they
conflict with each other.

The fact that the of_fixed_link_whateveritwas() function (sorry I can't
remember the name) returns true for both indicating that they're both
fixed-link is a historic artifact that has not been changed. As the
fixed-PHY code supporting that way was dropped, I suppose that should
have been cleaned up at some point, but I never got around to it
(remember, development in this space is a very slow process.) There
were always more pressing matters to be dealt with.

Maybe we should now make of_fixed_link_whateveritwas() no longer return
true, and introduce of_managed_in_band() or something like that which
drivers can test that separately. I'm not sure it's worth the driver
churn to make such a change, I'm not sure what the benefit would be.

> Anyway, before I comment any further on the other points, I have a board
> using armada-3720-turris-mox.dts on which I wanted to make a test, but I
> don't fully understand the results, could you help me do so?
> 
> By default, both the mvneta master and my 6390 top-most switch are
> configured for inband/2500base-x. In essence I'm perfectly fine with
> that. I don't care whether IEEE standardized inband/2500base-x, as long
> as both drivers come to expect to enable or disable inband depending on
> the device tree.
> 
> I've dumped the variables from mvneta_pcs_get_state() and it appears
> that the mvneta is reporting AN complete. This would suggest that there
> is indeed in-band autoneg taking place with the 6390 switch.
> 
> Then I modified the device tree to disable in-band autoneg (I've checked
> mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config and it behaves how I'd expect, enabling
> BMCR_ANENABLE strictly according to phylink_autoneg_inband(mode)).
> Essentially what I'm trying is to intentionally break in-band autoneg by
> causing a mismatch, to prove that it is indeed taking place.
> 
> The results are interesting: state->an_complete is still reported as 1
> for eth1 (mvneta).
> 
> ip link set eth1 up
> [   70.809889] mvneta d0040000.ethernet eth1: configuring for inband/2500base-x link mode
> [   70.818086] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b4c state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
> [   70.836081] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b4c state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
> [   70.843748] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Down
> [   70.859944] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_ADVERTISE 0xa0 adv 0x80 changed 1
> [   70.878737] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_BMCR 0x140 bmcr 0x140 phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) 0
> [   70.898302] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Up - 2.5Gbps/Full - flow control off
> [   71.069532] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b4c state->an_complete 1 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 1 state->duplex 1
> [   71.083376] mvneta d0040000.ethernet eth1: Link is Up - 2.5Gbps/Full - flow control rx/tx
> [   71.091672] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth1: link becomes ready
> 
> Then I studied MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG and I noticed that the bit
> you're talking about, MVNETA_GMAC_AN_BYPASS_ENABLE (bit 3) is indeed set
> by default (the driver doesn't set it).

Correct - because of history, and changing it could break setups that
have been working since before DT. The driver has never changed the
bypass bit, so playing with that when phylink was introduced risked
regressions.

> I've intentionally masked it off in mvneta_pcs_config() by setting it in
> the "mask" variable and nowhere else. Now I get:
> 
> ip link set eth1 up
> [  434.336679] mvneta d0040000.ethernet eth1: configuring for inband/2500base-x link mode
> [  434.342618] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Down
> [  434.350020] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b44 state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
> [  434.350055] mvneta_pcs_get_state: MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG 0x9b44 state->an_complete 0 state->speed 2500 state->pause 0x3 state->link 0 state->duplex 1
> [  434.384794] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_ADVERTISE 0xa0 adv 0x80 changed 1
> [  434.403808] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: mv88e6390_serdes_pcs_config: port 9 MV88E6390_SGMII_BMCR 0x140 bmcr 0x140 phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) 0
> [  434.423732] mv88e6085 d0032004.mdio-mii:10: Link is Up - 2.5Gbps/Full - flow control off
> 
> so state->an_complete now remains zero, and the link is down on the CPU
> port, and indeed I can no longer ping the board from the outside world.

We can see that the DSA switch thinks the link came up, but mvneta
didn't because autoneg never completed. We can see from the
MV88E6390_SGMII_BMCR value that AN is definitely disabled. So we
positively have one end of the link configured for no AN (a fixed
link) and the other side configured for AN.

That is expected with a strict and correct implementation. As you've
spotted, mvneta is not a strict implementation, because it defaults
to allowing bypass mode, which allows the dissimilar configuration
due to history.

However, what you will find is that you will get the same results
with or without these patches applied - because the DSA switch will
default to not using in-band AN on its CPU port, and that isn't
changed when the DSA port is brought up without phylink.

> So what this is telling me is that mvneta has some built-in resilience
> to in-band autoneg mismatches, via MVNETA_GMAC_AN_BYPASS_ENABLE. But that
> (a) doesn't make it valid to mix and match a fixed-link with a managed =
>     "in-band-status" mode
> (b) doesn't mean it's unspecified whether managed = "in-band-status"
>     should dictate whether to enable in-band autoneg or not
> (c) doesn't mean that other devices/drivers support "AN bypass" to save
>     the day and make an invalid DT description appear to work just fine
> 
> This further supports my idea that we should make a better attempt of
> matching the DSA master's mode with the node we're faking in DSA for
> phylink. For Marvell hardware you or Andrew are surely more knowledgeable
> to be able to say whether that's needed right now or not. But in the
> general case please don't push this to everyone, it just muddies the
> waters.

I really don't get this.

For a mv88e6xxx port which supports 1000base-X, with these patches
applied, then these are all effectively equivalent:

		port@N {
			reg = <N>;
			label = "cpu";
			ethernet = <&ethX>;
		};

		port@N {
			reg = <N>;
			label = "cpu";
			ethernet = <&ethX>;
			phy-mode = "1000base-x";
		};

		port@N {
			reg = <N>;
			label = "cpu";
			ethernet = <&ethX>;
			fixed-link {
				speed = <1000>;
				full-duplex;
			};
		};

		port@N {
			reg = <N>;
			label = "cpu";
			ethernet = <&ethX>;
			phy-mode = "1000base-x";
			fixed-link {
				speed = <1000>;
				full-duplex;
			};
		};

and all _should_ lead to inband AN being disabled.

That is my understanding of Andrew's statements on the defaulting
parameters for both the inter-switch and CPU ports. (Maybe Andrew can
clarify whether this is correct or not.)

However, this would not equivalent to any of the above:

		port@N {
			reg = <N>;
			label = "cpu";
			ethernet = <&ethX>;
			managed = "in-band-status";
		};

The reason this is not equivalent is - as you've recently spotted -
of_phy_is_fixed_link() will return true, and therefore phylink gets
passed the above node to work with - and we do not generate a swnode
fixed-link stanza for it. The behaviour in this case is completely
unaffected by these patches.

If a DSA driver defaults to AN enabled on the DSA/CPU ports, and makes
use of the defaulting firmware description, then this will break with
these patches, since we setup a fixed-link specifier that states that
no AN should be used. That's why I've been trying to get these tested,
and that's why there's a risk with them. However, that's got nothing
to do with whether the driver implements filling in this new
"default_interface" field.

We could go delving into the node pointed to by the phandle and retrieve
whatever parameters from there, but that is an entirely new behaviour
and would be a functional change to the behaviour that Andrew has been
promoting - and is itself not free of a risk of regressions caused by
that approach. What if there's an interface converter in the path between
the# CPU ethernet device and the DSA that hasn't needed to be described?
Digging out the phy-mode from the CPU side could be the wrong thing to
do.

Then there's the question whether DSA should have been validating that
the description on both ends of the link are compatible with each other.
The problem with that is just the same as the above - an undescribed
interface converter would make such validation problematical.

So, I don't think we could rely on the description on the other end of
the link to be capable of describing the setup on the DSA port end.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Andrew Lunn]

> I still don't understand your point - because you seem to be conflating
> two different things (at least as I understand it.)
> 
> We have this:
> 
> 		port@N {
> 			reg = <N>;
> 			label = "cpu";
> 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> 		};
> 
> This specifies that the port operates at whatever interface mode and
> settings gives the maximum speed. There is no mention of a "managed"
> property, and therefore (Andrew, correct me if I'm wrong) in-band
> negotiation is not expected to be used.

I would actually say it is undefined if in-band is expected or
not. Pretty much everything is undefined, expect 'maximum speed'.

If you can choose between SGMII and 1000BaseX, GMII or RGMII, it is
not defined which you should pick. However generally, *MII and a
SERDES are mutually exclusive in hardware, except for the 6352 which
have some ports with both. The switches do have strapping pins which
can configure most ports into specific modes, which is probably want
most boards do, and the "maximum speed" probably does not in fact
adjust the port mode unless really required. It does however configure
the MAC to fixed speed. There is a degree of separation between the
MAC and the internal PHY/PCS. So the MAC could be fixed, and the PCS
is probably using its power up defaults which could be to perform
in-band signalling. And it is very likely the results from that in
band signalling is ignored by the MAC.

So this is all pretty fragile, but that is the way this has all
evolved over time for the mv88e6xxx driver. And so far, boards
continue to work, or at least, we are not going reports they are
broken. That however does not mean it will not all implode sometime in
the future, and we probably should be asking new submissions to always
use a fixed-link and a phy-mode, even if it is not strictly needed.

	Andrew

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Andrew Lunn]

> I still don't understand your point - because you seem to be conflating
> two different things (at least as I understand it.)
> 
> We have this:
> 
> 		port@N {
> 			reg = <N>;
> 			label = "cpu";
> 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> 		};
> 
> This specifies that the port operates at whatever interface mode and
> settings gives the maximum speed. There is no mention of a "managed"
> property, and therefore (Andrew, correct me if I'm wrong) in-band
> negotiation is not expected to be used.

I would actually say it is undefined if in-band is expected or
not. Pretty much everything is undefined, expect 'maximum speed'.

If you can choose between SGMII and 1000BaseX, GMII or RGMII, it is
not defined which you should pick. However generally, *MII and a
SERDES are mutually exclusive in hardware, except for the 6352 which
have some ports with both. The switches do have strapping pins which
can configure most ports into specific modes, which is probably want
most boards do, and the "maximum speed" probably does not in fact
adjust the port mode unless really required. It does however configure
the MAC to fixed speed. There is a degree of separation between the
MAC and the internal PHY/PCS. So the MAC could be fixed, and the PCS
is probably using its power up defaults which could be to perform
in-band signalling. And it is very likely the results from that in
band signalling is ignored by the MAC.

So this is all pretty fragile, but that is the way this has all
evolved over time for the mv88e6xxx driver. And so far, boards
continue to work, or at least, we are not going reports they are
broken. That however does not mean it will not all implode sometime in
the future, and we probably should be asking new submissions to always
use a fixed-link and a phy-mode, even if it is not strictly needed.

	Andrew

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Andrew Lunn]

> If a DSA driver defaults to AN enabled on the DSA/CPU ports, and makes
> use of the defaulting firmware description, then this will break with
> these patches, since we setup a fixed-link specifier that states that
> no AN should be used.

There is another way to look at this. AN is only an issue for SERDES
based links. A bit of grepping:

vf610-zii-cfu1.dts:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
vf610-zii-dev-rev-b.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
vf610-zii-dev-rev-b.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
vf610-zii-dev-rev-b.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
vf610-zii-dev-rev-c.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-dev-rev-c.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-scu4-aib.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-scu4-aib.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-scu4-aib.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-scu4-aib.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-spb4.dts:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-ssmb-dtu.dts:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-ssmb-dtu.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6xxx-mdio-external";
vf610-zii-ssmb-spu3.dts:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";

vf610 is a Vybrid, which is fast Ethernet. No SERDES. We cannot break
the CPU port on these...

kirkwood-dir665.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
kirkwood-l-50.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
kirkwood-l-50.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
kirkwood-linksys-viper.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
kirkwood-mv88f6281gtw-ge.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
kirkwood-rd88f6281.dtsi:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";

RGMII or GMII. You cannot break the CPU port on these.

orion5x-netgear-wnr854t.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";

Even older than kirkwood, mo chance it uses SERDES.

imx51-zii-rdu1.dts:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
imx51-zii-scu2-mezz.dts:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
imx51-zii-scu3-esb.dts
imx6q-bx50v3.dtsi:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085"; /* 88e6240*/
imx6qdl-gw5904.dtsi:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
imx6qdl-zii-rdu2.dtsi:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
imx7d-zii-rpu2.dts:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";

These all have a FEC, so are either GMII or MII. No SERDES.

What is left for 32bit ARM is:

armada-370-rd.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
Has a fixed-link for the switch, and nothing for the SoC

armada-381-netgear-gs110emx.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
Has a fixed-link for the switch and a fixed-link for the SoC, as is RGMII

armada-385-clearfog-gtr-l8.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
armada-385-clearfog-gtr-s4.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
These two have nothing for the CPU port, SoC has fixed-link, "2500base-x"

armada-385-linksys.dtsi:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
Has a fixed link, and Soc also has a fixed link, SGMII.

armada-385-turris-omnia.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
Has a fixed link, with phy-mode rgmii-id.

armada-388-clearfog.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
Has a fixed link, SoC also has a fixed link.

armada-xp-linksys-mamba.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
Has a fixed-link, nothing for the SoC side.

So the majority of boards are:

1) Not SERDES based

or

2) Have a fixed-link.

It is just the two clearfog boards which might have a problem, but
these two also use mvneta, and Russell already pointed out, they are
by default forgiving with inband signalling.

In the arm64 world, we have:

freescale/imx8mq-zii-ultra.dtsi:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
marvell/cn9130-crb.dtsi:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
marvell/armada-3720-turris-mox.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
marvell/armada-3720-turris-mox.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
marvell/armada-3720-turris-mox.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
marvell/armada-3720-turris-mox.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
marvell/armada-3720-turris-mox.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
marvell/armada-3720-turris-mox.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
marvell/armada-3720-espressobin.dtsi:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
marvell/armada-7040-mochabin.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
marvell/armada-8040-clearfog-gt-8k.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";

So another RGMII FEC, and then Marvell devices which are all pretty
forgiving.

So i would say, the likelihood of the CPU port breaking is pretty low.

DSA ports could also be an issue here.

armada-3720-turris-mox.dts has:

                                phy-mode = "2500base-x";
                                managed = "in-band-status";
for all its DSA ports.

vf610-zii-dev-rev-b.dts has fixed link, some ports are rgmii, some are
1000base-X.

vf610-zii-dev-rev-c.dts does not have fixed link and the ports are
xaui. Does xaui have in-band signalling?

vf610-zii-scu4-aib.dts does not have fixed link and the ports are xgmii and 2500base-x.

So there are more open questions here, but a lot less boards.

   Andrew

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Andrew Lunn]

> If a DSA driver defaults to AN enabled on the DSA/CPU ports, and makes
> use of the defaulting firmware description, then this will break with
> these patches, since we setup a fixed-link specifier that states that
> no AN should be used.

There is another way to look at this. AN is only an issue for SERDES
based links. A bit of grepping:

vf610-zii-cfu1.dts:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
vf610-zii-dev-rev-b.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
vf610-zii-dev-rev-b.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
vf610-zii-dev-rev-b.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
vf610-zii-dev-rev-c.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-dev-rev-c.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-scu4-aib.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-scu4-aib.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-scu4-aib.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-scu4-aib.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-spb4.dts:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-ssmb-dtu.dts:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
vf610-zii-ssmb-dtu.dts:				compatible = "marvell,mv88e6xxx-mdio-external";
vf610-zii-ssmb-spu3.dts:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";

vf610 is a Vybrid, which is fast Ethernet. No SERDES. We cannot break
the CPU port on these...

kirkwood-dir665.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
kirkwood-l-50.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
kirkwood-l-50.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
kirkwood-linksys-viper.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
kirkwood-mv88f6281gtw-ge.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
kirkwood-rd88f6281.dtsi:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";

RGMII or GMII. You cannot break the CPU port on these.

orion5x-netgear-wnr854t.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";

Even older than kirkwood, mo chance it uses SERDES.

imx51-zii-rdu1.dts:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
imx51-zii-scu2-mezz.dts:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
imx51-zii-scu3-esb.dts
imx6q-bx50v3.dtsi:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085"; /* 88e6240*/
imx6qdl-gw5904.dtsi:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
imx6qdl-zii-rdu2.dtsi:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
imx7d-zii-rpu2.dts:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";

These all have a FEC, so are either GMII or MII. No SERDES.

What is left for 32bit ARM is:

armada-370-rd.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
Has a fixed-link for the switch, and nothing for the SoC

armada-381-netgear-gs110emx.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
Has a fixed-link for the switch and a fixed-link for the SoC, as is RGMII

armada-385-clearfog-gtr-l8.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
armada-385-clearfog-gtr-s4.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
These two have nothing for the CPU port, SoC has fixed-link, "2500base-x"

armada-385-linksys.dtsi:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
Has a fixed link, and Soc also has a fixed link, SGMII.

armada-385-turris-omnia.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
Has a fixed link, with phy-mode rgmii-id.

armada-388-clearfog.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
Has a fixed link, SoC also has a fixed link.

armada-xp-linksys-mamba.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
Has a fixed-link, nothing for the SoC side.

So the majority of boards are:

1) Not SERDES based

or

2) Have a fixed-link.

It is just the two clearfog boards which might have a problem, but
these two also use mvneta, and Russell already pointed out, they are
by default forgiving with inband signalling.

In the arm64 world, we have:

freescale/imx8mq-zii-ultra.dtsi:			compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
marvell/cn9130-crb.dtsi:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
marvell/armada-3720-turris-mox.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
marvell/armada-3720-turris-mox.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
marvell/armada-3720-turris-mox.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
marvell/armada-3720-turris-mox.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
marvell/armada-3720-turris-mox.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6190";
marvell/armada-3720-turris-mox.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
marvell/armada-3720-espressobin.dtsi:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
marvell/armada-7040-mochabin.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";
marvell/armada-8040-clearfog-gt-8k.dts:		compatible = "marvell,mv88e6085";

So another RGMII FEC, and then Marvell devices which are all pretty
forgiving.

So i would say, the likelihood of the CPU port breaking is pretty low.

DSA ports could also be an issue here.

armada-3720-turris-mox.dts has:

                                phy-mode = "2500base-x";
                                managed = "in-band-status";
for all its DSA ports.

vf610-zii-dev-rev-b.dts has fixed link, some ports are rgmii, some are
1000base-X.

vf610-zii-dev-rev-c.dts does not have fixed link and the ports are
xaui. Does xaui have in-band signalling?

vf610-zii-scu4-aib.dts does not have fixed link and the ports are xgmii and 2500base-x.

So there are more open questions here, but a lot less boards.

   Andrew

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:20:05PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > What is hard for me to comprehend is how we ever came to conclude that
> > > > for SERDES protocols where clause 37 is possible (2500base-x should be
> > > > part of this group), managed = "in-band-status" does not imply in-band
> > > > autoneg, considering the mvneta precedent.
> > > 
> > > That is a recent addition, since the argument was made that when using
> > > a 1000base-X fibre transceiver, using ethtool to disable autoneg is a
> > > reasonable thing to do - and something that was supported with
> > > mvneta_ethtool_set_link_ksettings() as it stands at the point in the
> > > commit above.
> > 
> > I'm sorry, I don't understand. What is the recent addition, and recent
> > relative to what? The 2500base-x link mode? Ok, but this is only
> > tangentially related to the point overall, more below.
> 
> I'm talking about how we handle 1000base-X autoneg - specifically this
> commit:
> 
> 92817dad7dcb net: phylink: Support disabling autonegotiation for PCS
> 
> where we can be in 1000base-X with managed = "in-band-status" but we
> have autoneg disabled. I thought that is what you were referring to.

So the correction you're persistently trying to make is:
managed = "in-band-status" does *not* necessarily imply in-band autoneg
being enabled, because the user can still run "ethtool -s eth0 autoneg off"
?

Yeah, ok, I wasn't trying to build any argument upon ethtool being able
to toggle autoneg. You can disable it, but it should still come up as
enabled. What I was saying was as a (possibly too generic) response to
this:

| | The way I understand what you're saying is that there is no guarantee
| | that the DSA master and CPU port will agree whether to use in-band
| | autoneg or not here (and implicitly, there is no guarantee that this
| | link will work):
| |
| |       &eth0 {
| |               phy-mode = "2500base-x";
| |               managed = "in-band-status";
| |       };
| |
| |       &switch_cpu_port {
| |               ethernet = <&eth0>;
| |               phy-mode = "2500base-x";
| |               managed = "in-band-status";
| |       };
| 
| Today, there is no guarantee - because it depends on how people have
| chosen to implement 2500base-X, and whether the hardware requires the
| use of in-band AN or prohibits it. This is what happens when stuff
| isn't standardised - one ends up with differing implementations doing
| different things, and this has happened not _only_ at hardware level
| but also software level as well.

If there is no guarantee that the above will (at least try) to use in-band
autoneg, it means that there is someone who decided, when he coded up
the driver, that managed = "in-band-status" doesn't imply using in-band
autoneg. That's what I was complaining about: I don't understand how we
got here. In turn, this came from an observation about the inband/10gbase-r
not having any actual in-band autoneg (more about this at the very end).

> As for 2500base-X, I had been raising the issue of AN in the past, for
> example (have I said it's really difficult to find old emails even with
> google?):
> 
> https://lwn.net/ml/netdev/20200618140623.GC1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk/

Why is this old conversation relevant? You said you suspect the hardware
is capable of AN at 2500base-x. It isn't - I had tested that on LS1028A
when I wrote the comment, and the check - all part of the code that was
being moved.

> and eventually I stopped caring about it, as it became pointless to
> raise it anymore when we had an established mixture of behaviours. This
> is why we have ended up with PCS drivers configuring for no AN for a
> firmware description of:
> 
> 	managed = "in-band-status";
> 	phy-mode = "2500base-x";

Sorry, I don't get why?

> and hence now have unclean semantics for this - some such as mvneta
> and mvpp2 will have AN enabled. Others such as pcs-lynx will not.

You mean in general, or with the firmware description you posted above?
Because the Lynx PCS does the best it can (considering it does this from
a function that returns void) to complain that you shouldn't put
MLO_AN_INBAND for 2500base-x.

static void lynx_pcs_link_up_2500basex(struct mdio_device *pcs,
				       unsigned int mode,
				       int speed, int duplex)
{
	u16 if_mode = 0;

	if (mode == MLO_AN_INBAND) {
		dev_err(&pcs->dev, "AN not supported for 2500BaseX\n");
		return;
	}

I noticed just earlier today that I made a blunder while upstreaming some
riser cards for some LS1028A-QDS development boards, and I did just that
(left 2500base-x with in-band-status). But the system just errors out.
I need to boot a board and fix that up. They're just NXP development
systems so not a big issue. Otherwise I'm not aware of what you're
talking about.

> However, both will request link status from the PCS side and use that
> to determine whether the link is up, and use the parameters that the
> PCS code returns for the link. Since 2500base-X can only operate at
> 2.5G, PCS code always reports SPEED_2500, and as half duplex is
> virtually never supported above 1G, DUPLEX_FULL.

If you're saying this just because Lynx implements pcs_get_state for
2500base-x, it's extremely likely that this simply originates from
vsc9959_pcs_link_state_2500basex(), which was deleted in ocelot in
commit 588d05504d2d ("net: dsa: ocelot: use the Lynx PCS helpers in
Felix and Seville"), and it was always dead code. It wasn't the only
dead code, remember commit b4c2354537b4 ("net: dsa: felix: delete
.phylink_mac_an_restart code").

Since the Lynx PCS prints error messages in inband/2500base-x mode,
and so did Felix/Ocelot before the code became common, I'm pretty sure
no one relies on this mode.

> > > > And why would we essentially redefine its meaning by stating that no,
> > > > it is only about the status, not about the autoneg, even though the
> > > > status comes from the autoneg for these protocols.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at there.
> > 
> > Sorry if I haven't made my point clear.
> > 
> > My point is that drivers may have more restrictive interpretations of
> > managed = "in-band-status", and the current logic of automatically
> > create a fixed-link for DSA's CPU ports is going to cause problems when
> > matched up with a DSA master that expects in-band autoneg for whatever
> > SERDES protocol.
> > 
> > What I'd like to happen as a result is that no DSA driver except Marvell
> > opts into this by default, and no driver opts into it without its maintainer
> > understanding the implications. Otherwise we're going to normalize the
> > expectation that a managed = "in-band-status" DSA master should be able
> > to interoperate with a fixed-link CPU port, but during this discussion
> > there was no argument being brought that a strict interpretation of
> > "in-band-status" as "enable autoneg" is incorrect in any way.
> 
> I still don't understand your point - because you seem to be conflating
> two different things (at least as I understand it.)
> 
> We have this:
> 
> 		port@N {
> 			reg = <N>;
> 			label = "cpu";
> 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> 		};
> 
> This specifies that the port operates at whatever interface mode and
> settings gives the maximum speed. There is no mention of a "managed"
> property, and therefore (Andrew, correct me if I'm wrong) in-band
> negotiation is not expected to be used.
> 
> The configuration of the ethX parameters on the other end of the link
> are up to the system integrator to get right, and the actual behaviour
> would depend on the ethernet driver. As I've said in previous emails,
> there is such a thing as "AN bypass" that can be implemented,

Not everyone has AN bypass, try to assume that no one except mvneta does.

> and it can default to be enabled, and drivers can ignore that such a
> bit even exists. So, it's possible that even with "managed" set to
> "in-band-status" in DT, a link to such a DSA switch will still come up
> even though we've requested in DT for AN to be used.
> 
> If an ethernet driver is implemented to strictly require in-band AN in
> this case, then the link won't come up, and the system integrator would
> have to debug the problem.
> 
> I think this is actually true on Clearfog - if one specifies the CPU
> port as I have above, and requests in-band on the host ethernet, then
> the link doesn't come up, because mvneta turns off AN bypass.

So what am I conflating in this case?

> > Thanks for this explanation, if nothing else, it seems to support the
> > way in which I was interpreting managed = "in-band-status" to mean
> > "enable in-band autoneg", but to be clear, I wasn't debating something
> > about the way in which mvneta was doing things. But rather, I was
> > debating why would *other* drivers do things differently such as to come
> > to expect that a fixed-link master + an in-band-status CPU port, or the
> > other way around, may be compatible with each other.
> 
> Please note that phylink makes a DT specification including both a
> fixed-link descriptor and a managed in-band-status property illegal
> because these are two different modes of operating the link, and they
> conflict with each other.

Ok, thank you for this information which I already knew, what is the context?

> The fact that the of_fixed_link_whateveritwas() function (sorry I can't
> remember the name) returns true for both indicating that they're both

of_phy_is_fixed_link()

> fixed-link is a historic artifact that has not been changed. As the
> fixed-PHY code supporting that way was dropped, I suppose that should
> have been cleaned up at some point, but I never got around to it
> (remember, development in this space is a very slow process.) There
> were always more pressing matters to be dealt with.
> 
> Maybe we should now make of_fixed_link_whateveritwas() no longer return
> true, and introduce of_managed_in_band() or something like that which
> drivers can test that separately. I'm not sure it's worth the driver
> churn to make such a change, I'm not sure what the benefit would be.

If we were to split of_phy_is_fixed_link() into of_phy_is_fixed_link()
and of_managed_in_band(), we'd effectively need to replace every
instance of "if (of_phy_is_fixed_link(np))" with
"if (of_phy_is_fixed_link(dp) || of_managed_in_band(np))" unless
instructed otherwise by maintainers. And maintainers will think:
"whoa, I had no idea...". Indeed, there are better uses of time.

> > Then I studied MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG and I noticed that the bit
> > you're talking about, MVNETA_GMAC_AN_BYPASS_ENABLE (bit 3) is indeed set
> > by default (the driver doesn't set it).
> 
> Correct - because of history, and changing it could break setups that
> have been working since before DT. The driver has never changed the
> bypass bit, so playing with that when phylink was introduced risked
> regressions.

No, as mentioned, it's good that it exists, just please don't come to
assume that everyone has something like it, and use it as a justification
that hey, I can create a fixed-link willy-nilly, and that will disable
in-band AN on the switch side, and then the system integrator will come
to debug, he'll see what happened there and he'll enable the AN bypass
bit in his other driver. That's not what's going to happen.

> > So what this is telling me is that mvneta has some built-in resilience
> > to in-band autoneg mismatches, via MVNETA_GMAC_AN_BYPASS_ENABLE. But that
> > (a) doesn't make it valid to mix and match a fixed-link with a managed =
> >     "in-band-status" mode
> > (b) doesn't mean it's unspecified whether managed = "in-band-status"
> >     should dictate whether to enable in-band autoneg or not
> > (c) doesn't mean that other devices/drivers support "AN bypass" to save
> >     the day and make an invalid DT description appear to work just fine
> > 
> > This further supports my idea that we should make a better attempt of
> > matching the DSA master's mode with the node we're faking in DSA for
> > phylink. For Marvell hardware you or Andrew are surely more knowledgeable
> > to be able to say whether that's needed right now or not. But in the
> > general case please don't push this to everyone, it just muddies the
> > waters.
> 
> I really don't get this.
> 
> For a mv88e6xxx port which supports 1000base-X, with these patches
> applied, then these are all effectively equivalent:
> 
> 		port@N {
> 			reg = <N>;
> 			label = "cpu";
> 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> 		};
> 
> 		port@N {
> 			reg = <N>;
> 			label = "cpu";
> 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> 			phy-mode = "1000base-x";
> 		};
> 
> 		port@N {
> 			reg = <N>;
> 			label = "cpu";
> 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> 			fixed-link {
> 				speed = <1000>;
> 				full-duplex;
> 			};
> 		};
> 
> 		port@N {
> 			reg = <N>;
> 			label = "cpu";
> 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> 			phy-mode = "1000base-x";
> 			fixed-link {
> 				speed = <1000>;
> 				full-duplex;
> 			};
> 		};
> 
> and all _should_ lead to inband AN being disabled.
> 
> That is my understanding of Andrew's statements on the defaulting
> parameters for both the inter-switch and CPU ports. (Maybe Andrew can
> clarify whether this is correct or not.)
> 
> However, this would not equivalent to any of the above:
> 
> 		port@N {
> 			reg = <N>;
> 			label = "cpu";
> 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> 			managed = "in-band-status";
> 		};
> 
> The reason this is not equivalent is - as you've recently spotted -
> of_phy_is_fixed_link() will return true, and therefore phylink gets
> passed the above node to work with - and we do not generate a swnode
> fixed-link stanza for it. The behaviour in this case is completely
> unaffected by these patches.

Thank you for this explanation, it is correct and I don't disagree with it.

> If a DSA driver defaults to AN enabled on the DSA/CPU ports, and makes
> use of the defaulting firmware description, then this will break with
> these patches, since we setup a fixed-link specifier that states that
> no AN should be used.

Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. I was saying that we don't know
whether in-band should be used or not. We could take as a vague hint the
managed = 'in-band-status' property of the DSA master. Additionally,
if the DSA master is mvneta-like, in-band AN could be broken and no one
might even notice. But chances are it might not be mvneta-like.
Only you or Andrew know the chances of that, and maybe you're willing to
take the gamble of unconditionally creating a fixed-link (no in-band AN)
as you're doing now, when in fact, correctness and all, a managed =
"in-band-status" OF property is what should have been auto-created.
My feedback is - if you're willing to take that gamble, do it just for
mv88e6xxx and the boards that got integrated into, I'm not willing to
opt other drivers into it.

> That's why I've been trying to get these tested, and that's why
> there's a risk with them. However, that's got nothing to do with
> whether the driver implements filling in this new "default_interface"
> field.
> 
> We could go delving into the node pointed to by the phandle and retrieve
> whatever parameters from there, but that is an entirely new behaviour
> and would be a functional change to the behaviour that Andrew has been
> promoting - and is itself not free of a risk of regressions caused by
> that approach. What if there's an interface converter in the path between
> the# CPU ethernet device and the DSA that hasn't needed to be described?
> Digging out the phy-mode from the CPU side could be the wrong thing to
> do.
> 
> Then there's the question whether DSA should have been validating that
> the description on both ends of the link are compatible with each other.
> The problem with that is just the same as the above - an undescribed
> interface converter would make such validation problematical.

Not on both ends, but individual drivers could validate their own
bindings to be perfectly honest with you. I think we should prioritize
on that. If driver maintainers don't know that there are defaulting DT
blobs in the wild, don't give them ideas.

> So, I don't think we could rely on the description on the other end of
> the link to be capable of describing the setup on the DSA port end.

If you go back in our conversation, I wasn't saying you should, either.
It was just a comment about the impossibility of the situation - it's is
a guessing game that shouldn't in any circumstance be generalized and
will never become perfect. I've been saying this a million times.
Move to phylink no more than what you need; assume everything else
works; add validation to what you don't have proof uses defaulting mode;
wait.

Now consider what originally triggered me. cn9130-crb.dtsi has a
defaulting CPU port of a 6393X, where the DSA master uses inband/10gbase-r
mode. What is DSA even supposed to make of that, beats me, if it were to
hypothetically follow the 'ethernet' phandle to determine whether the
master wants in-band AN or doesn't...

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:20:05PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > What is hard for me to comprehend is how we ever came to conclude that
> > > > for SERDES protocols where clause 37 is possible (2500base-x should be
> > > > part of this group), managed = "in-band-status" does not imply in-band
> > > > autoneg, considering the mvneta precedent.
> > > 
> > > That is a recent addition, since the argument was made that when using
> > > a 1000base-X fibre transceiver, using ethtool to disable autoneg is a
> > > reasonable thing to do - and something that was supported with
> > > mvneta_ethtool_set_link_ksettings() as it stands at the point in the
> > > commit above.
> > 
> > I'm sorry, I don't understand. What is the recent addition, and recent
> > relative to what? The 2500base-x link mode? Ok, but this is only
> > tangentially related to the point overall, more below.
> 
> I'm talking about how we handle 1000base-X autoneg - specifically this
> commit:
> 
> 92817dad7dcb net: phylink: Support disabling autonegotiation for PCS
> 
> where we can be in 1000base-X with managed = "in-band-status" but we
> have autoneg disabled. I thought that is what you were referring to.

So the correction you're persistently trying to make is:
managed = "in-band-status" does *not* necessarily imply in-band autoneg
being enabled, because the user can still run "ethtool -s eth0 autoneg off"
?

Yeah, ok, I wasn't trying to build any argument upon ethtool being able
to toggle autoneg. You can disable it, but it should still come up as
enabled. What I was saying was as a (possibly too generic) response to
this:

| | The way I understand what you're saying is that there is no guarantee
| | that the DSA master and CPU port will agree whether to use in-band
| | autoneg or not here (and implicitly, there is no guarantee that this
| | link will work):
| |
| |       &eth0 {
| |               phy-mode = "2500base-x";
| |               managed = "in-band-status";
| |       };
| |
| |       &switch_cpu_port {
| |               ethernet = <&eth0>;
| |               phy-mode = "2500base-x";
| |               managed = "in-band-status";
| |       };
| 
| Today, there is no guarantee - because it depends on how people have
| chosen to implement 2500base-X, and whether the hardware requires the
| use of in-band AN or prohibits it. This is what happens when stuff
| isn't standardised - one ends up with differing implementations doing
| different things, and this has happened not _only_ at hardware level
| but also software level as well.

If there is no guarantee that the above will (at least try) to use in-band
autoneg, it means that there is someone who decided, when he coded up
the driver, that managed = "in-band-status" doesn't imply using in-band
autoneg. That's what I was complaining about: I don't understand how we
got here. In turn, this came from an observation about the inband/10gbase-r
not having any actual in-band autoneg (more about this at the very end).

> As for 2500base-X, I had been raising the issue of AN in the past, for
> example (have I said it's really difficult to find old emails even with
> google?):
> 
> https://lwn.net/ml/netdev/20200618140623.GC1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk/

Why is this old conversation relevant? You said you suspect the hardware
is capable of AN at 2500base-x. It isn't - I had tested that on LS1028A
when I wrote the comment, and the check - all part of the code that was
being moved.

> and eventually I stopped caring about it, as it became pointless to
> raise it anymore when we had an established mixture of behaviours. This
> is why we have ended up with PCS drivers configuring for no AN for a
> firmware description of:
> 
> 	managed = "in-band-status";
> 	phy-mode = "2500base-x";

Sorry, I don't get why?

> and hence now have unclean semantics for this - some such as mvneta
> and mvpp2 will have AN enabled. Others such as pcs-lynx will not.

You mean in general, or with the firmware description you posted above?
Because the Lynx PCS does the best it can (considering it does this from
a function that returns void) to complain that you shouldn't put
MLO_AN_INBAND for 2500base-x.

static void lynx_pcs_link_up_2500basex(struct mdio_device *pcs,
				       unsigned int mode,
				       int speed, int duplex)
{
	u16 if_mode = 0;

	if (mode == MLO_AN_INBAND) {
		dev_err(&pcs->dev, "AN not supported for 2500BaseX\n");
		return;
	}

I noticed just earlier today that I made a blunder while upstreaming some
riser cards for some LS1028A-QDS development boards, and I did just that
(left 2500base-x with in-band-status). But the system just errors out.
I need to boot a board and fix that up. They're just NXP development
systems so not a big issue. Otherwise I'm not aware of what you're
talking about.

> However, both will request link status from the PCS side and use that
> to determine whether the link is up, and use the parameters that the
> PCS code returns for the link. Since 2500base-X can only operate at
> 2.5G, PCS code always reports SPEED_2500, and as half duplex is
> virtually never supported above 1G, DUPLEX_FULL.

If you're saying this just because Lynx implements pcs_get_state for
2500base-x, it's extremely likely that this simply originates from
vsc9959_pcs_link_state_2500basex(), which was deleted in ocelot in
commit 588d05504d2d ("net: dsa: ocelot: use the Lynx PCS helpers in
Felix and Seville"), and it was always dead code. It wasn't the only
dead code, remember commit b4c2354537b4 ("net: dsa: felix: delete
.phylink_mac_an_restart code").

Since the Lynx PCS prints error messages in inband/2500base-x mode,
and so did Felix/Ocelot before the code became common, I'm pretty sure
no one relies on this mode.

> > > > And why would we essentially redefine its meaning by stating that no,
> > > > it is only about the status, not about the autoneg, even though the
> > > > status comes from the autoneg for these protocols.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at there.
> > 
> > Sorry if I haven't made my point clear.
> > 
> > My point is that drivers may have more restrictive interpretations of
> > managed = "in-band-status", and the current logic of automatically
> > create a fixed-link for DSA's CPU ports is going to cause problems when
> > matched up with a DSA master that expects in-band autoneg for whatever
> > SERDES protocol.
> > 
> > What I'd like to happen as a result is that no DSA driver except Marvell
> > opts into this by default, and no driver opts into it without its maintainer
> > understanding the implications. Otherwise we're going to normalize the
> > expectation that a managed = "in-band-status" DSA master should be able
> > to interoperate with a fixed-link CPU port, but during this discussion
> > there was no argument being brought that a strict interpretation of
> > "in-band-status" as "enable autoneg" is incorrect in any way.
> 
> I still don't understand your point - because you seem to be conflating
> two different things (at least as I understand it.)
> 
> We have this:
> 
> 		port@N {
> 			reg = <N>;
> 			label = "cpu";
> 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> 		};
> 
> This specifies that the port operates at whatever interface mode and
> settings gives the maximum speed. There is no mention of a "managed"
> property, and therefore (Andrew, correct me if I'm wrong) in-band
> negotiation is not expected to be used.
> 
> The configuration of the ethX parameters on the other end of the link
> are up to the system integrator to get right, and the actual behaviour
> would depend on the ethernet driver. As I've said in previous emails,
> there is such a thing as "AN bypass" that can be implemented,

Not everyone has AN bypass, try to assume that no one except mvneta does.

> and it can default to be enabled, and drivers can ignore that such a
> bit even exists. So, it's possible that even with "managed" set to
> "in-band-status" in DT, a link to such a DSA switch will still come up
> even though we've requested in DT for AN to be used.
> 
> If an ethernet driver is implemented to strictly require in-band AN in
> this case, then the link won't come up, and the system integrator would
> have to debug the problem.
> 
> I think this is actually true on Clearfog - if one specifies the CPU
> port as I have above, and requests in-band on the host ethernet, then
> the link doesn't come up, because mvneta turns off AN bypass.

So what am I conflating in this case?

> > Thanks for this explanation, if nothing else, it seems to support the
> > way in which I was interpreting managed = "in-band-status" to mean
> > "enable in-band autoneg", but to be clear, I wasn't debating something
> > about the way in which mvneta was doing things. But rather, I was
> > debating why would *other* drivers do things differently such as to come
> > to expect that a fixed-link master + an in-band-status CPU port, or the
> > other way around, may be compatible with each other.
> 
> Please note that phylink makes a DT specification including both a
> fixed-link descriptor and a managed in-band-status property illegal
> because these are two different modes of operating the link, and they
> conflict with each other.

Ok, thank you for this information which I already knew, what is the context?

> The fact that the of_fixed_link_whateveritwas() function (sorry I can't
> remember the name) returns true for both indicating that they're both

of_phy_is_fixed_link()

> fixed-link is a historic artifact that has not been changed. As the
> fixed-PHY code supporting that way was dropped, I suppose that should
> have been cleaned up at some point, but I never got around to it
> (remember, development in this space is a very slow process.) There
> were always more pressing matters to be dealt with.
> 
> Maybe we should now make of_fixed_link_whateveritwas() no longer return
> true, and introduce of_managed_in_band() or something like that which
> drivers can test that separately. I'm not sure it's worth the driver
> churn to make such a change, I'm not sure what the benefit would be.

If we were to split of_phy_is_fixed_link() into of_phy_is_fixed_link()
and of_managed_in_band(), we'd effectively need to replace every
instance of "if (of_phy_is_fixed_link(np))" with
"if (of_phy_is_fixed_link(dp) || of_managed_in_band(np))" unless
instructed otherwise by maintainers. And maintainers will think:
"whoa, I had no idea...". Indeed, there are better uses of time.

> > Then I studied MVNETA_GMAC_AUTONEG_CONFIG and I noticed that the bit
> > you're talking about, MVNETA_GMAC_AN_BYPASS_ENABLE (bit 3) is indeed set
> > by default (the driver doesn't set it).
> 
> Correct - because of history, and changing it could break setups that
> have been working since before DT. The driver has never changed the
> bypass bit, so playing with that when phylink was introduced risked
> regressions.

No, as mentioned, it's good that it exists, just please don't come to
assume that everyone has something like it, and use it as a justification
that hey, I can create a fixed-link willy-nilly, and that will disable
in-band AN on the switch side, and then the system integrator will come
to debug, he'll see what happened there and he'll enable the AN bypass
bit in his other driver. That's not what's going to happen.

> > So what this is telling me is that mvneta has some built-in resilience
> > to in-band autoneg mismatches, via MVNETA_GMAC_AN_BYPASS_ENABLE. But that
> > (a) doesn't make it valid to mix and match a fixed-link with a managed =
> >     "in-band-status" mode
> > (b) doesn't mean it's unspecified whether managed = "in-band-status"
> >     should dictate whether to enable in-band autoneg or not
> > (c) doesn't mean that other devices/drivers support "AN bypass" to save
> >     the day and make an invalid DT description appear to work just fine
> > 
> > This further supports my idea that we should make a better attempt of
> > matching the DSA master's mode with the node we're faking in DSA for
> > phylink. For Marvell hardware you or Andrew are surely more knowledgeable
> > to be able to say whether that's needed right now or not. But in the
> > general case please don't push this to everyone, it just muddies the
> > waters.
> 
> I really don't get this.
> 
> For a mv88e6xxx port which supports 1000base-X, with these patches
> applied, then these are all effectively equivalent:
> 
> 		port@N {
> 			reg = <N>;
> 			label = "cpu";
> 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> 		};
> 
> 		port@N {
> 			reg = <N>;
> 			label = "cpu";
> 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> 			phy-mode = "1000base-x";
> 		};
> 
> 		port@N {
> 			reg = <N>;
> 			label = "cpu";
> 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> 			fixed-link {
> 				speed = <1000>;
> 				full-duplex;
> 			};
> 		};
> 
> 		port@N {
> 			reg = <N>;
> 			label = "cpu";
> 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> 			phy-mode = "1000base-x";
> 			fixed-link {
> 				speed = <1000>;
> 				full-duplex;
> 			};
> 		};
> 
> and all _should_ lead to inband AN being disabled.
> 
> That is my understanding of Andrew's statements on the defaulting
> parameters for both the inter-switch and CPU ports. (Maybe Andrew can
> clarify whether this is correct or not.)
> 
> However, this would not equivalent to any of the above:
> 
> 		port@N {
> 			reg = <N>;
> 			label = "cpu";
> 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> 			managed = "in-band-status";
> 		};
> 
> The reason this is not equivalent is - as you've recently spotted -
> of_phy_is_fixed_link() will return true, and therefore phylink gets
> passed the above node to work with - and we do not generate a swnode
> fixed-link stanza for it. The behaviour in this case is completely
> unaffected by these patches.

Thank you for this explanation, it is correct and I don't disagree with it.

> If a DSA driver defaults to AN enabled on the DSA/CPU ports, and makes
> use of the defaulting firmware description, then this will break with
> these patches, since we setup a fixed-link specifier that states that
> no AN should be used.

Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. I was saying that we don't know
whether in-band should be used or not. We could take as a vague hint the
managed = 'in-band-status' property of the DSA master. Additionally,
if the DSA master is mvneta-like, in-band AN could be broken and no one
might even notice. But chances are it might not be mvneta-like.
Only you or Andrew know the chances of that, and maybe you're willing to
take the gamble of unconditionally creating a fixed-link (no in-band AN)
as you're doing now, when in fact, correctness and all, a managed =
"in-band-status" OF property is what should have been auto-created.
My feedback is - if you're willing to take that gamble, do it just for
mv88e6xxx and the boards that got integrated into, I'm not willing to
opt other drivers into it.

> That's why I've been trying to get these tested, and that's why
> there's a risk with them. However, that's got nothing to do with
> whether the driver implements filling in this new "default_interface"
> field.
> 
> We could go delving into the node pointed to by the phandle and retrieve
> whatever parameters from there, but that is an entirely new behaviour
> and would be a functional change to the behaviour that Andrew has been
> promoting - and is itself not free of a risk of regressions caused by
> that approach. What if there's an interface converter in the path between
> the# CPU ethernet device and the DSA that hasn't needed to be described?
> Digging out the phy-mode from the CPU side could be the wrong thing to
> do.
> 
> Then there's the question whether DSA should have been validating that
> the description on both ends of the link are compatible with each other.
> The problem with that is just the same as the above - an undescribed
> interface converter would make such validation problematical.

Not on both ends, but individual drivers could validate their own
bindings to be perfectly honest with you. I think we should prioritize
on that. If driver maintainers don't know that there are defaulting DT
blobs in the wild, don't give them ideas.

> So, I don't think we could rely on the description on the other end of
> the link to be capable of describing the setup on the DSA port end.

If you go back in our conversation, I wasn't saying you should, either.
It was just a comment about the impossibility of the situation - it's is
a guessing game that shouldn't in any circumstance be generalized and
will never become perfect. I've been saying this a million times.
Move to phylink no more than what you need; assume everything else
works; add validation to what you don't have proof uses defaulting mode;
wait.

Now consider what originally triggered me. cn9130-crb.dtsi has a
defaulting CPU port of a 6393X, where the DSA master uses inband/10gbase-r
mode. What is DSA even supposed to make of that, beats me, if it were to
hypothetically follow the 'ethernet' phandle to determine whether the
master wants in-band AN or doesn't...

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 01:39:32AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:20:05PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > > What is hard for me to comprehend is how we ever came to conclude that
> > > > > for SERDES protocols where clause 37 is possible (2500base-x should be
> > > > > part of this group), managed = "in-band-status" does not imply in-band
> > > > > autoneg, considering the mvneta precedent.
> > > > 
> > > > That is a recent addition, since the argument was made that when using
> > > > a 1000base-X fibre transceiver, using ethtool to disable autoneg is a
> > > > reasonable thing to do - and something that was supported with
> > > > mvneta_ethtool_set_link_ksettings() as it stands at the point in the
> > > > commit above.
> > > 
> > > I'm sorry, I don't understand. What is the recent addition, and recent
> > > relative to what? The 2500base-x link mode? Ok, but this is only
> > > tangentially related to the point overall, more below.
> > 
> > I'm talking about how we handle 1000base-X autoneg - specifically this
> > commit:
> > 
> > 92817dad7dcb net: phylink: Support disabling autonegotiation for PCS
> > 
> > where we can be in 1000base-X with managed = "in-band-status" but we
> > have autoneg disabled. I thought that is what you were referring to.
> 
> So the correction you're persistently trying to make is:
> managed = "in-band-status" does *not* necessarily imply in-band autoneg
> being enabled, because the user can still run "ethtool -s eth0 autoneg off"
> ?

Correct.

> | | The way I understand what you're saying is that there is no guarantee
> | | that the DSA master and CPU port will agree whether to use in-band
> | | autoneg or not here (and implicitly, there is no guarantee that this
> | | link will work):
> | |
> | |       &eth0 {
> | |               phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> | |               managed = "in-band-status";
> | |       };
> | |
> | |       &switch_cpu_port {
> | |               ethernet = <&eth0>;
> | |               phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> | |               managed = "in-band-status";
> | |       };
> | 
> | Today, there is no guarantee - because it depends on how people have
> | chosen to implement 2500base-X, and whether the hardware requires the
> | use of in-band AN or prohibits it. This is what happens when stuff
> | isn't standardised - one ends up with differing implementations doing
> | different things, and this has happened not _only_ at hardware level
> | but also software level as well.
> 
> If there is no guarantee that the above will (at least try) to use in-band
> autoneg, it means that there is someone who decided, when he coded up
> the driver, that managed = "in-band-status" doesn't imply using in-band
> autoneg. That's what I was complaining about: I don't understand how we
> got here. In turn, this came from an observation about the inband/10gbase-r
> not having any actual in-band autoneg (more about this at the very end).

We got here through cases such as the one I pointed out where I tried
to highlight the issue. Maybe something happened in the pcs-lynx case,
it's pretty hard to find the history via google now, because searching
there does not give all the different versions of the patch set.

Maybe it was some other PCS, I don't know. Same problem, searching
google is very patchy at finding the various versions of patchsets
that were submitted.

All I know is that at some point I gave up pointing the issue out.

pcs-lynx today does issue an error. pcs-xpcs doesn't, it just turns
off AN no matter what. I can't find the history via google for that.

> > and eventually I stopped caring about it, as it became pointless to
> > raise it anymore when we had an established mixture of behaviours. This
> > is why we have ended up with PCS drivers configuring for no AN for a
> > firmware description of:
> > 
> > 	managed = "in-band-status";
> > 	phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> 
> Sorry, I don't get why?

Why what? Why I stopped caring about this issue? Or Why we ended up
with drivers configuring the above without AN? I think for the latter
I've explained how we got here. For the former, it's the feeling that
my comments were being ignored or just lead to arguments, so I stopped
bothering.

> > I still don't understand your point - because you seem to be conflating
> > two different things (at least as I understand it.)
> > 
> > We have this:
> > 
> > 		port@N {
> > 			reg = <N>;
> > 			label = "cpu";
> > 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> > 		};
> > 
> > This specifies that the port operates at whatever interface mode and
> > settings gives the maximum speed. There is no mention of a "managed"
> > property, and therefore (Andrew, correct me if I'm wrong) in-band
> > negotiation is not expected to be used.
> > 
> > The configuration of the ethX parameters on the other end of the link
> > are up to the system integrator to get right, and the actual behaviour
> > would depend on the ethernet driver. As I've said in previous emails,
> > there is such a thing as "AN bypass" that can be implemented,
> 
> Not everyone has AN bypass, try to assume that no one except mvneta does.

I think I said "can be implemented", meaning not everyone does.

> > and it can default to be enabled, and drivers can ignore that such a
> > bit even exists. So, it's possible that even with "managed" set to
> > "in-band-status" in DT, a link to such a DSA switch will still come up
> > even though we've requested in DT for AN to be used.
> > 
> > If an ethernet driver is implemented to strictly require in-band AN in
> > this case, then the link won't come up, and the system integrator would
> > have to debug the problem.
> > 
> > I think this is actually true on Clearfog - if one specifies the CPU
> > port as I have above, and requests in-band on the host ethernet, then
> > the link doesn't come up, because mvneta turns off AN bypass.
> 
> So what am I conflating in this case?

You seem to think that the above DT stanza can end up with in-band AN
enabled.

> > > Thanks for this explanation, if nothing else, it seems to support the
> > > way in which I was interpreting managed = "in-band-status" to mean
> > > "enable in-band autoneg", but to be clear, I wasn't debating something
> > > about the way in which mvneta was doing things. But rather, I was
> > > debating why would *other* drivers do things differently such as to come
> > > to expect that a fixed-link master + an in-band-status CPU port, or the
> > > other way around, may be compatible with each other.
> > 
> > Please note that phylink makes a DT specification including both a
> > fixed-link descriptor and a managed in-band-status property illegal
> > because these are two different modes of operating the link, and they
> > conflict with each other.
> 
> Ok, thank you for this information which I already knew, what is the context?

FFS. You're the one who's writing emails to me that include *both*
"fixed-link" and "in-band-status" together. I'm pointing out that
specifying that in DT for a port together is not permitted.

And here I give up reading this email. Sorry, I'm too frustrated
with this nitpicking, and too frustrated with spending hours writing a
reply only to have it torn apart.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 01:39:32AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:20:05PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > > What is hard for me to comprehend is how we ever came to conclude that
> > > > > for SERDES protocols where clause 37 is possible (2500base-x should be
> > > > > part of this group), managed = "in-band-status" does not imply in-band
> > > > > autoneg, considering the mvneta precedent.
> > > > 
> > > > That is a recent addition, since the argument was made that when using
> > > > a 1000base-X fibre transceiver, using ethtool to disable autoneg is a
> > > > reasonable thing to do - and something that was supported with
> > > > mvneta_ethtool_set_link_ksettings() as it stands at the point in the
> > > > commit above.
> > > 
> > > I'm sorry, I don't understand. What is the recent addition, and recent
> > > relative to what? The 2500base-x link mode? Ok, but this is only
> > > tangentially related to the point overall, more below.
> > 
> > I'm talking about how we handle 1000base-X autoneg - specifically this
> > commit:
> > 
> > 92817dad7dcb net: phylink: Support disabling autonegotiation for PCS
> > 
> > where we can be in 1000base-X with managed = "in-band-status" but we
> > have autoneg disabled. I thought that is what you were referring to.
> 
> So the correction you're persistently trying to make is:
> managed = "in-band-status" does *not* necessarily imply in-band autoneg
> being enabled, because the user can still run "ethtool -s eth0 autoneg off"
> ?

Correct.

> | | The way I understand what you're saying is that there is no guarantee
> | | that the DSA master and CPU port will agree whether to use in-band
> | | autoneg or not here (and implicitly, there is no guarantee that this
> | | link will work):
> | |
> | |       &eth0 {
> | |               phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> | |               managed = "in-band-status";
> | |       };
> | |
> | |       &switch_cpu_port {
> | |               ethernet = <&eth0>;
> | |               phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> | |               managed = "in-band-status";
> | |       };
> | 
> | Today, there is no guarantee - because it depends on how people have
> | chosen to implement 2500base-X, and whether the hardware requires the
> | use of in-band AN or prohibits it. This is what happens when stuff
> | isn't standardised - one ends up with differing implementations doing
> | different things, and this has happened not _only_ at hardware level
> | but also software level as well.
> 
> If there is no guarantee that the above will (at least try) to use in-band
> autoneg, it means that there is someone who decided, when he coded up
> the driver, that managed = "in-band-status" doesn't imply using in-band
> autoneg. That's what I was complaining about: I don't understand how we
> got here. In turn, this came from an observation about the inband/10gbase-r
> not having any actual in-band autoneg (more about this at the very end).

We got here through cases such as the one I pointed out where I tried
to highlight the issue. Maybe something happened in the pcs-lynx case,
it's pretty hard to find the history via google now, because searching
there does not give all the different versions of the patch set.

Maybe it was some other PCS, I don't know. Same problem, searching
google is very patchy at finding the various versions of patchsets
that were submitted.

All I know is that at some point I gave up pointing the issue out.

pcs-lynx today does issue an error. pcs-xpcs doesn't, it just turns
off AN no matter what. I can't find the history via google for that.

> > and eventually I stopped caring about it, as it became pointless to
> > raise it anymore when we had an established mixture of behaviours. This
> > is why we have ended up with PCS drivers configuring for no AN for a
> > firmware description of:
> > 
> > 	managed = "in-band-status";
> > 	phy-mode = "2500base-x";
> 
> Sorry, I don't get why?

Why what? Why I stopped caring about this issue? Or Why we ended up
with drivers configuring the above without AN? I think for the latter
I've explained how we got here. For the former, it's the feeling that
my comments were being ignored or just lead to arguments, so I stopped
bothering.

> > I still don't understand your point - because you seem to be conflating
> > two different things (at least as I understand it.)
> > 
> > We have this:
> > 
> > 		port@N {
> > 			reg = <N>;
> > 			label = "cpu";
> > 			ethernet = <&ethX>;
> > 		};
> > 
> > This specifies that the port operates at whatever interface mode and
> > settings gives the maximum speed. There is no mention of a "managed"
> > property, and therefore (Andrew, correct me if I'm wrong) in-band
> > negotiation is not expected to be used.
> > 
> > The configuration of the ethX parameters on the other end of the link
> > are up to the system integrator to get right, and the actual behaviour
> > would depend on the ethernet driver. As I've said in previous emails,
> > there is such a thing as "AN bypass" that can be implemented,
> 
> Not everyone has AN bypass, try to assume that no one except mvneta does.

I think I said "can be implemented", meaning not everyone does.

> > and it can default to be enabled, and drivers can ignore that such a
> > bit even exists. So, it's possible that even with "managed" set to
> > "in-band-status" in DT, a link to such a DSA switch will still come up
> > even though we've requested in DT for AN to be used.
> > 
> > If an ethernet driver is implemented to strictly require in-band AN in
> > this case, then the link won't come up, and the system integrator would
> > have to debug the problem.
> > 
> > I think this is actually true on Clearfog - if one specifies the CPU
> > port as I have above, and requests in-band on the host ethernet, then
> > the link doesn't come up, because mvneta turns off AN bypass.
> 
> So what am I conflating in this case?

You seem to think that the above DT stanza can end up with in-band AN
enabled.

> > > Thanks for this explanation, if nothing else, it seems to support the
> > > way in which I was interpreting managed = "in-band-status" to mean
> > > "enable in-band autoneg", but to be clear, I wasn't debating something
> > > about the way in which mvneta was doing things. But rather, I was
> > > debating why would *other* drivers do things differently such as to come
> > > to expect that a fixed-link master + an in-band-status CPU port, or the
> > > other way around, may be compatible with each other.
> > 
> > Please note that phylink makes a DT specification including both a
> > fixed-link descriptor and a managed in-band-status property illegal
> > because these are two different modes of operating the link, and they
> > conflict with each other.
> 
> Ok, thank you for this information which I already knew, what is the context?

FFS. You're the one who's writing emails to me that include *both*
"fixed-link" and "in-band-status" together. I'm pointing out that
specifying that in DT for a port together is not permitted.

And here I give up reading this email. Sorry, I'm too frustrated
with this nitpicking, and too frustrated with spending hours writing a
reply only to have it torn apart.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 08:12:04AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > Thanks for this explanation, if nothing else, it seems to support the
> > > > way in which I was interpreting managed = "in-band-status" to mean
> > > > "enable in-band autoneg", but to be clear, I wasn't debating something
> > > > about the way in which mvneta was doing things. But rather, I was
> > > > debating why would *other* drivers do things differently such as to come
> > > > to expect that a fixed-link master + an in-band-status CPU port, or the
> > > > other way around, may be compatible with each other.
> > > 
> > > Please note that phylink makes a DT specification including both a
> > > fixed-link descriptor and a managed in-band-status property illegal
> > > because these are two different modes of operating the link, and they
> > > conflict with each other.
> > 
> > Ok, thank you for this information which I already knew, what is the context?
> 
> FFS. You're the one who's writing emails to me that include *both*
> "fixed-link" and "in-band-status" together. I'm pointing out that
> specifying that in DT for a port together is not permitted.
> 
> And here I give up reading this email. Sorry, I'm too frustrated
> with this nitpicking, and too frustrated with spending hours writing a
> reply only to have it torn apart.

This is becoming toxic. You've imagined that when I was talking about
mixing fixed-link and managed = "in-band-status" I was referring to this
kind of DSA port OF node:

	port@N {
		managed = "in-band-status";

		fixed-link {
			speed = <1000>;
			full-duplex;
		};
	};

Now you're thinking I'm retarded because you've politely told me the above
is invalid, and you're wondering why I'm still talking despite of that.

Well guess what, I've never once mentioned this kind of invalid OF node,
I'm not the one who's writing emails to you that include
"both fixed-link and in-band-status together", yet in your mind the fact
that you may have misunderstood isn't even a possibility. What I'm
talking about is TWO OF nodes, one like this:

	master: ethernet@N: {
		managed = "in-band-status";
	};

	switch_cpu_port: port@N: {
		ethernet = <&master>;

		fixed-link {
			speed = <1000>;
			full-duplex;
		};
	};

It is *these* two that need to agree on in-band autoneg, when the "fixed-link"
of switch_cpu_port was created using software nodes, damn it. Andrew
said that it isn't specified whether in-band autoneg is used or not.
It was even repeated for the millionth time in the continuation of my
email, which you should have read instead of frustrating yourself for a
stupid reason again.

If you think I'm making this up and I *was* talking about in-band-status
and fixed-link together in the same node, go ahead and search back where
I've said that, or even implied that. But don't blame me when you'll get
frustrated again that you won't find it. I re-read what I said once
yesterday and once today.

That's where our communication problem is, you're politely trying to
tell your conversation partner that he's an idiot and he JUST DOESN'T
WANT TO UNDERSTAND, DAMN IT.

In any case, it looks like it's time to remove myself from this conversation.
I am going to propose a patch shortly which adds validation in DSA for
the OF nodes of DSA and CPU ports, and opts some drivers out of it.
I'm going to opt into validation as many drivers as reasonably possible.
You'll then have to work with the driver maintainers who opted out of
it. I'm not one of them, so you won't have to work with me. Beyond that,
I just don't care and I had enough. I have other things to do too.

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 08:12:04AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > Thanks for this explanation, if nothing else, it seems to support the
> > > > way in which I was interpreting managed = "in-band-status" to mean
> > > > "enable in-band autoneg", but to be clear, I wasn't debating something
> > > > about the way in which mvneta was doing things. But rather, I was
> > > > debating why would *other* drivers do things differently such as to come
> > > > to expect that a fixed-link master + an in-band-status CPU port, or the
> > > > other way around, may be compatible with each other.
> > > 
> > > Please note that phylink makes a DT specification including both a
> > > fixed-link descriptor and a managed in-band-status property illegal
> > > because these are two different modes of operating the link, and they
> > > conflict with each other.
> > 
> > Ok, thank you for this information which I already knew, what is the context?
> 
> FFS. You're the one who's writing emails to me that include *both*
> "fixed-link" and "in-band-status" together. I'm pointing out that
> specifying that in DT for a port together is not permitted.
> 
> And here I give up reading this email. Sorry, I'm too frustrated
> with this nitpicking, and too frustrated with spending hours writing a
> reply only to have it torn apart.

This is becoming toxic. You've imagined that when I was talking about
mixing fixed-link and managed = "in-band-status" I was referring to this
kind of DSA port OF node:

	port@N {
		managed = "in-band-status";

		fixed-link {
			speed = <1000>;
			full-duplex;
		};
	};

Now you're thinking I'm retarded because you've politely told me the above
is invalid, and you're wondering why I'm still talking despite of that.

Well guess what, I've never once mentioned this kind of invalid OF node,
I'm not the one who's writing emails to you that include
"both fixed-link and in-band-status together", yet in your mind the fact
that you may have misunderstood isn't even a possibility. What I'm
talking about is TWO OF nodes, one like this:

	master: ethernet@N: {
		managed = "in-band-status";
	};

	switch_cpu_port: port@N: {
		ethernet = <&master>;

		fixed-link {
			speed = <1000>;
			full-duplex;
		};
	};

It is *these* two that need to agree on in-band autoneg, when the "fixed-link"
of switch_cpu_port was created using software nodes, damn it. Andrew
said that it isn't specified whether in-band autoneg is used or not.
It was even repeated for the millionth time in the continuation of my
email, which you should have read instead of frustrating yourself for a
stupid reason again.

If you think I'm making this up and I *was* talking about in-band-status
and fixed-link together in the same node, go ahead and search back where
I've said that, or even implied that. But don't blame me when you'll get
frustrated again that you won't find it. I re-read what I said once
yesterday and once today.

That's where our communication problem is, you're politely trying to
tell your conversation partner that he's an idiot and he JUST DOESN'T
WANT TO UNDERSTAND, DAMN IT.

In any case, it looks like it's time to remove myself from this conversation.
I am going to propose a patch shortly which adds validation in DSA for
the OF nodes of DSA and CPU ports, and opts some drivers out of it.
I'm going to opt into validation as many drivers as reasonably possible.
You'll then have to work with the driver maintainers who opted out of
it. I'm not one of them, so you won't have to work with me. Beyond that,
I just don't care and I had enough. I have other things to do too.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Marek Behún]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 01:39:32 +0300
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote:

> You mean in general, or with the firmware description you posted above?
> Because the Lynx PCS does the best it can (considering it does this from
> a function that returns void) to complain that you shouldn't put
> MLO_AN_INBAND for 2500base-x.
> 
> static void lynx_pcs_link_up_2500basex(struct mdio_device *pcs,
> 				       unsigned int mode,
> 				       int speed, int duplex)
> {
> 	u16 if_mode = 0;
> 
> 	if (mode == MLO_AN_INBAND) {
> 		dev_err(&pcs->dev, "AN not supported for 2500BaseX\n");
> 		return;
> 	}
> 
> I noticed just earlier today that I made a blunder while upstreaming some
> riser cards for some LS1028A-QDS development boards, and I did just that
> (left 2500base-x with in-band-status). But the system just errors out.
> I need to boot a board and fix that up. They're just NXP development
> systems so not a big issue. Otherwise I'm not aware of what you're
> talking about.
> 
> > However, both will request link status from the PCS side and use that
> > to determine whether the link is up, and use the parameters that the
> > PCS code returns for the link. Since 2500base-X can only operate at
> > 2.5G, PCS code always reports SPEED_2500, and as half duplex is
> > virtually never supported above 1G, DUPLEX_FULL.  
> 
> If you're saying this just because Lynx implements pcs_get_state for
> 2500base-x, it's extremely likely that this simply originates from
> vsc9959_pcs_link_state_2500basex(), which was deleted in ocelot in
> commit 588d05504d2d ("net: dsa: ocelot: use the Lynx PCS helpers in
> Felix and Seville"), and it was always dead code. It wasn't the only
> dead code, remember commit b4c2354537b4 ("net: dsa: felix: delete
> .phylink_mac_an_restart code").
> 
> Since the Lynx PCS prints error messages in inband/2500base-x mode,
> and so did Felix/Ocelot before the code became common, I'm pretty sure
> no one relies on this mode.

Does Lynx PCS support 1000base-x with AN? Because if so, it may be
possible to somehow hack working AN for 2500base-x, as I managed it for
88E6393X in the commit I mentioned (by configuring 1000base-x and then
hacking the PHY speed to 2.5x).

Anyway, I am now looking at the standards, and it seems that all the X
and R have K variant: 1000base-kx, 2500base-kx, 5gbase-kr and
10gbase-kr. These modes have mandatory clause 73 autonegotiation.

So either we need to add these as different modes of the
phy_interface_t type, or we need to differentiate whether clause 37 or
clause 73 AN should be used by another property.

But since 1000base-x supports clause 37 and 1000base-kx clause 73, the
one property that we have, managed="in-band-status" is not enough, if
we keep calling both modes '1000base-x'.

So maybe we really need to add K variants as separate
PHY_INTERFACE_MODED_ constants. That way we can keep assuming clause 37
for 2500base-x, and try to implement it for as much drivers as
possible, by hacking it up...

And I still don't understand this clause 73 AN at all. For example, if
one PHY supports only up to 2.5g speeds, will it complete AN with
another PHY that supports up to 10g speeds, if the second PHY will
(maybe?) try at higher frequency?

Marek

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Marek Behún]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 01:39:32 +0300
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote:

> You mean in general, or with the firmware description you posted above?
> Because the Lynx PCS does the best it can (considering it does this from
> a function that returns void) to complain that you shouldn't put
> MLO_AN_INBAND for 2500base-x.
> 
> static void lynx_pcs_link_up_2500basex(struct mdio_device *pcs,
> 				       unsigned int mode,
> 				       int speed, int duplex)
> {
> 	u16 if_mode = 0;
> 
> 	if (mode == MLO_AN_INBAND) {
> 		dev_err(&pcs->dev, "AN not supported for 2500BaseX\n");
> 		return;
> 	}
> 
> I noticed just earlier today that I made a blunder while upstreaming some
> riser cards for some LS1028A-QDS development boards, and I did just that
> (left 2500base-x with in-band-status). But the system just errors out.
> I need to boot a board and fix that up. They're just NXP development
> systems so not a big issue. Otherwise I'm not aware of what you're
> talking about.
> 
> > However, both will request link status from the PCS side and use that
> > to determine whether the link is up, and use the parameters that the
> > PCS code returns for the link. Since 2500base-X can only operate at
> > 2.5G, PCS code always reports SPEED_2500, and as half duplex is
> > virtually never supported above 1G, DUPLEX_FULL.  
> 
> If you're saying this just because Lynx implements pcs_get_state for
> 2500base-x, it's extremely likely that this simply originates from
> vsc9959_pcs_link_state_2500basex(), which was deleted in ocelot in
> commit 588d05504d2d ("net: dsa: ocelot: use the Lynx PCS helpers in
> Felix and Seville"), and it was always dead code. It wasn't the only
> dead code, remember commit b4c2354537b4 ("net: dsa: felix: delete
> .phylink_mac_an_restart code").
> 
> Since the Lynx PCS prints error messages in inband/2500base-x mode,
> and so did Felix/Ocelot before the code became common, I'm pretty sure
> no one relies on this mode.

Does Lynx PCS support 1000base-x with AN? Because if so, it may be
possible to somehow hack working AN for 2500base-x, as I managed it for
88E6393X in the commit I mentioned (by configuring 1000base-x and then
hacking the PHY speed to 2.5x).

Anyway, I am now looking at the standards, and it seems that all the X
and R have K variant: 1000base-kx, 2500base-kx, 5gbase-kr and
10gbase-kr. These modes have mandatory clause 73 autonegotiation.

So either we need to add these as different modes of the
phy_interface_t type, or we need to differentiate whether clause 37 or
clause 73 AN should be used by another property.

But since 1000base-x supports clause 37 and 1000base-kx clause 73, the
one property that we have, managed="in-band-status" is not enough, if
we keep calling both modes '1000base-x'.

So maybe we really need to add K variants as separate
PHY_INTERFACE_MODED_ constants. That way we can keep assuming clause 37
for 2500base-x, and try to implement it for as much drivers as
possible, by hacking it up...

And I still don't understand this clause 73 AN at all. For example, if
one PHY supports only up to 2.5g speeds, will it complete AN with
another PHY that supports up to 10g speeds, if the second PHY will
(maybe?) try at higher frequency?

Marek


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 07:26:55PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> Does Lynx PCS support 1000base-x with AN?

Yes, that would be the intention.

> Because if so, it may be possible to somehow hack working AN for
> 2500base-x, as I managed it for 88E6393X in the commit I mentioned (by
> configuring 1000base-x and then hacking the PHY speed to 2.5x).

I would need to try and see. For Lynx, to dynamically change from
1000base-x to 2500base-x essentially means to move the SERDES lane from
a PLL that can provide the 1.25 GHz required for 1000base-x to a PLL
that can provide the 3.125 GHz required for 2500base-x. The procedure
itself doesn't involve resetting the PCS, but to be honest with you,
I don't know whether the state of the PCS registers is going to be
preserved across the PLL change. Maybe it isn't, but this is entirely
masked out by the phylink major reconfig process, I don't know.

The alternative to dynamic reconfiguration is to program some bits that
instruct the SoC what to do on power-on reset, and these bits include
the initial SERDES protocols and PLL assignments too. I only tried to
experiment with in-band autoneg in this mode (with the lane being
configured for 2.5G out of reset, rather than dynamically switching it
to 2.5G).

> Anyway, I am now looking at the standards, and it seems that all the X
> and R have K variant: 1000base-kx, 2500base-kx, 5gbase-kr and
> 10gbase-kr. These modes have mandatory clause 73 autonegotiation.

The X in BASE-X stands for 8b/10b coding, the R stands for 64b/66b coding.
Whereas the K stands for bacKplane, i.e. the medium (compare this with
the T in BASE-T, for twisted pair copper cable). Or with 1000BASE-SX and
1000BASE-LX, the S stands for Short wavelength laser and the L for Long
wavelength.

What I'm trying to say, the 'X' in BASE-X doesn't stand for anything
having to do with fiber, I guess 1000BASE-X is just a generic name for
the coding scheme (PCS level) rather than something about the medium
(PMD level). The terminology is pretty much a mess.

> So either we need to add these as different modes of the
> phy_interface_t type, or we need to differentiate whether clause 37 or
> clause 73 AN should be used by another property.
> 
> But since 1000base-x supports clause 37 and 1000base-kx clause 73, the
> one property that we have, managed="in-band-status" is not enough, if
> we keep calling both modes '1000base-x'.
> 
> So maybe we really need to add K variants as separate
> PHY_INTERFACE_MODED_ constants. That way we can keep assuming clause 37
> for 2500base-x, and try to implement it for as much drivers as
> possible, by hacking it up...

Well, for good or bad, 10GBase-KR does have its own phy-mode string,
and Sean Anderson is sending a patch to add 1000base-KX now too.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220719235002.1944800-3-sean.anderson@seco.com/
(I still don't understand what that has to do with the topic of his
series, but anyway)

More at the end.

> 
> And I still don't understand this clause 73 AN at all. For example, if
> one PHY supports only up to 2.5g speeds, will it complete AN with
> another PHY that supports up to 10g speeds, if the second PHY will
> (maybe?) try at higher frequency?

Define what you mean by "one PHY supports only up to 2.5G speeds".
My copy of IEEE 802.3-2018 doesn't list in Table 73–4—Technology Ability
Field encoding any signaling mode that is capable of 2.5G, but rather
1000BASE-KX, 10GBASE-KR, 25GBASE-KR and so on. So you'd have to express
your question in terms of bits that are actually advertised through the
Technology Ability field.

Then, clause 73 AN, very much like the clause 28/40 AN of BASE-T (to
which it is most directly comparable) has a priority resolution function,
meaning that if 2 link partners advertise support for multiple
technologies, Table 73–5—Priority Resolution will decide which one of
the commonly advertised technologies gets used.

Side note: contrast this with flow control, which annoyingly was
designed by IEEE to not have a priority resolution, in other words you
don't get a graceful falloff of the resolved pause modes depending on
what you and the link partner advertised, instead you need to
preconfigure both ends if you want to achieve a particular result;
this is IMO as useless as not having AN at all.

There is of course no guarantee that two backplane link partners will
have any technology ability in common, for example one may advertise
only 1000Base-KX and the other only 10GBase-KR. In that case, autoneg
will complete, but the link will simply not come up.

The clause 73 autoneg signaling takes place using a predetermined, low-speed
encoding. The medium transitions to the highest negotiated technology,
and performs clause 74 link training on that medium, only after both
ends agree that clause 73 autoneg has completed. This kind of implies
that they will agree on the frequency being used for the data traffic.

If you're asking whether 2 backplane devices will advertise 10GBase-KR
but one of them supports a data rate of only up to 2.5Gbps over that 10G
link, I think this is vendor-dependent and IEEE doesn't say anything
about it. For example this is where rate adaptation could come into
play, either through flow control, or there could be an extension to
clause 73 similar to what Cisco did with USXGMII, where the lane
operates at 10GBaud but via symbol replication your data rate can
actually be only 2.5Gbps. I'm not aware of real life applications of
rate adaptation over backplane links.


I hinted earlier that clause 73 autoneg is most directly comparable to
BASE-T autoneg (these 2 are even situated at different layers if you
look at the IEEE OSI stack pictures, compared to where clause 37 AN is).
The problem is that the Linux kernel support for new physical technologies
grew organically, and we don't have a structure in place that scales
naturally to all the places in which these technologies may appear in
the stack. For example we have the phy-mode, and this represents the

...

/goes searching for the documentation, I don't want to be making this up/

...

  phy-connection-type:
    description:
      Specifies interface type between the Ethernet device and a physical
      layer (PHY) device.

There you go, pretty vague. What's the Ethernet device, and what's the
PHY device?

For example SGMII connects a MAC to a PHY, but to speak SGMII to reach
to your PHY, you need another PHY that does the parallel GMII to serial
translation for you. So to say that the phy-mode is SGMII, you need to
ignore that the MAC has a PHY too.

10GBase-KR is similar in a way, it can be placed at multiple layers, and
traditionally, where you put it makes a difference to how we describe it
in Linux.

Maybe you have a 10GBase-T PHY chip with a backplane host-side PHY, it
supports clause 73 declaring the 10GBase-KR technology, then it supports
clause 74 link training, the whole shebang. These things exist. How would
you describe this? You'd say the phy-mode is "10gbase-kr", according to
precedent. Would that be the best thing to do, in the spirit of clause 73?
I don't think it would. Essentially what would need to happen as a
consequence of this description is that your PCS would essentially
populate its Technology Ability with a single bit, corresponding to what
you put in phy-mode, because that's how we shoehorned this. Then we'd
say what, that managed = "in-band-status" decides whether to bypass
clause 73 AN or not? I don't think so.

Truth is, a 10G-KR "PCS" (what we mean when we say a PHY integrated into a MAC)
is much more similar to a dedicated 10G-KR PHY, to the point that it's
indistinguishable (what Linux thinks of a phy_device is actually 2 PHYs
back to back, one for the host side and one for the medium side), and it
*needs* to be treated by Linux in the same way regardless of where it's
placed. You *need* to be able to control the backplane PCS' advertisement,
whether to use FEC or not, regardless if it's your medium facing device,
or an in-between device.

The discussion is much, much bigger than this, but in summary, I think
it would be quite short-sighted to expand managed = "in-band-status" for
anything related to clause 73, or for much more than what it means right
now (the problem is, what _does_ it mean and what _doesn't_ it?).

This, plus I think development needs to be driven by someone with real
world needs and a sense for what's practical. I am quite well outside of
the sphere of 10-gig-and-higher networking, I'm just looking from the
peanut gallery, so that won't be me.

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 07:26:55PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> Does Lynx PCS support 1000base-x with AN?

Yes, that would be the intention.

> Because if so, it may be possible to somehow hack working AN for
> 2500base-x, as I managed it for 88E6393X in the commit I mentioned (by
> configuring 1000base-x and then hacking the PHY speed to 2.5x).

I would need to try and see. For Lynx, to dynamically change from
1000base-x to 2500base-x essentially means to move the SERDES lane from
a PLL that can provide the 1.25 GHz required for 1000base-x to a PLL
that can provide the 3.125 GHz required for 2500base-x. The procedure
itself doesn't involve resetting the PCS, but to be honest with you,
I don't know whether the state of the PCS registers is going to be
preserved across the PLL change. Maybe it isn't, but this is entirely
masked out by the phylink major reconfig process, I don't know.

The alternative to dynamic reconfiguration is to program some bits that
instruct the SoC what to do on power-on reset, and these bits include
the initial SERDES protocols and PLL assignments too. I only tried to
experiment with in-band autoneg in this mode (with the lane being
configured for 2.5G out of reset, rather than dynamically switching it
to 2.5G).

> Anyway, I am now looking at the standards, and it seems that all the X
> and R have K variant: 1000base-kx, 2500base-kx, 5gbase-kr and
> 10gbase-kr. These modes have mandatory clause 73 autonegotiation.

The X in BASE-X stands for 8b/10b coding, the R stands for 64b/66b coding.
Whereas the K stands for bacKplane, i.e. the medium (compare this with
the T in BASE-T, for twisted pair copper cable). Or with 1000BASE-SX and
1000BASE-LX, the S stands for Short wavelength laser and the L for Long
wavelength.

What I'm trying to say, the 'X' in BASE-X doesn't stand for anything
having to do with fiber, I guess 1000BASE-X is just a generic name for
the coding scheme (PCS level) rather than something about the medium
(PMD level). The terminology is pretty much a mess.

> So either we need to add these as different modes of the
> phy_interface_t type, or we need to differentiate whether clause 37 or
> clause 73 AN should be used by another property.
> 
> But since 1000base-x supports clause 37 and 1000base-kx clause 73, the
> one property that we have, managed="in-band-status" is not enough, if
> we keep calling both modes '1000base-x'.
> 
> So maybe we really need to add K variants as separate
> PHY_INTERFACE_MODED_ constants. That way we can keep assuming clause 37
> for 2500base-x, and try to implement it for as much drivers as
> possible, by hacking it up...

Well, for good or bad, 10GBase-KR does have its own phy-mode string,
and Sean Anderson is sending a patch to add 1000base-KX now too.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220719235002.1944800-3-sean.anderson@seco.com/
(I still don't understand what that has to do with the topic of his
series, but anyway)

More at the end.

> 
> And I still don't understand this clause 73 AN at all. For example, if
> one PHY supports only up to 2.5g speeds, will it complete AN with
> another PHY that supports up to 10g speeds, if the second PHY will
> (maybe?) try at higher frequency?

Define what you mean by "one PHY supports only up to 2.5G speeds".
My copy of IEEE 802.3-2018 doesn't list in Table 73–4—Technology Ability
Field encoding any signaling mode that is capable of 2.5G, but rather
1000BASE-KX, 10GBASE-KR, 25GBASE-KR and so on. So you'd have to express
your question in terms of bits that are actually advertised through the
Technology Ability field.

Then, clause 73 AN, very much like the clause 28/40 AN of BASE-T (to
which it is most directly comparable) has a priority resolution function,
meaning that if 2 link partners advertise support for multiple
technologies, Table 73–5—Priority Resolution will decide which one of
the commonly advertised technologies gets used.

Side note: contrast this with flow control, which annoyingly was
designed by IEEE to not have a priority resolution, in other words you
don't get a graceful falloff of the resolved pause modes depending on
what you and the link partner advertised, instead you need to
preconfigure both ends if you want to achieve a particular result;
this is IMO as useless as not having AN at all.

There is of course no guarantee that two backplane link partners will
have any technology ability in common, for example one may advertise
only 1000Base-KX and the other only 10GBase-KR. In that case, autoneg
will complete, but the link will simply not come up.

The clause 73 autoneg signaling takes place using a predetermined, low-speed
encoding. The medium transitions to the highest negotiated technology,
and performs clause 74 link training on that medium, only after both
ends agree that clause 73 autoneg has completed. This kind of implies
that they will agree on the frequency being used for the data traffic.

If you're asking whether 2 backplane devices will advertise 10GBase-KR
but one of them supports a data rate of only up to 2.5Gbps over that 10G
link, I think this is vendor-dependent and IEEE doesn't say anything
about it. For example this is where rate adaptation could come into
play, either through flow control, or there could be an extension to
clause 73 similar to what Cisco did with USXGMII, where the lane
operates at 10GBaud but via symbol replication your data rate can
actually be only 2.5Gbps. I'm not aware of real life applications of
rate adaptation over backplane links.


I hinted earlier that clause 73 autoneg is most directly comparable to
BASE-T autoneg (these 2 are even situated at different layers if you
look at the IEEE OSI stack pictures, compared to where clause 37 AN is).
The problem is that the Linux kernel support for new physical technologies
grew organically, and we don't have a structure in place that scales
naturally to all the places in which these technologies may appear in
the stack. For example we have the phy-mode, and this represents the

...

/goes searching for the documentation, I don't want to be making this up/

...

  phy-connection-type:
    description:
      Specifies interface type between the Ethernet device and a physical
      layer (PHY) device.

There you go, pretty vague. What's the Ethernet device, and what's the
PHY device?

For example SGMII connects a MAC to a PHY, but to speak SGMII to reach
to your PHY, you need another PHY that does the parallel GMII to serial
translation for you. So to say that the phy-mode is SGMII, you need to
ignore that the MAC has a PHY too.

10GBase-KR is similar in a way, it can be placed at multiple layers, and
traditionally, where you put it makes a difference to how we describe it
in Linux.

Maybe you have a 10GBase-T PHY chip with a backplane host-side PHY, it
supports clause 73 declaring the 10GBase-KR technology, then it supports
clause 74 link training, the whole shebang. These things exist. How would
you describe this? You'd say the phy-mode is "10gbase-kr", according to
precedent. Would that be the best thing to do, in the spirit of clause 73?
I don't think it would. Essentially what would need to happen as a
consequence of this description is that your PCS would essentially
populate its Technology Ability with a single bit, corresponding to what
you put in phy-mode, because that's how we shoehorned this. Then we'd
say what, that managed = "in-band-status" decides whether to bypass
clause 73 AN or not? I don't think so.

Truth is, a 10G-KR "PCS" (what we mean when we say a PHY integrated into a MAC)
is much more similar to a dedicated 10G-KR PHY, to the point that it's
indistinguishable (what Linux thinks of a phy_device is actually 2 PHYs
back to back, one for the host side and one for the medium side), and it
*needs* to be treated by Linux in the same way regardless of where it's
placed. You *need* to be able to control the backplane PCS' advertisement,
whether to use FEC or not, regardless if it's your medium facing device,
or an in-between device.

The discussion is much, much bigger than this, but in summary, I think
it would be quite short-sighted to expand managed = "in-band-status" for
anything related to clause 73, or for much more than what it means right
now (the problem is, what _does_ it mean and what _doesn't_ it?).

This, plus I think development needs to be driven by someone with real
world needs and a sense for what's practical. I am quite well outside of
the sphere of 10-gig-and-higher networking, I'm just looking from the
peanut gallery, so that won't be me.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 04:44:44PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 08:12:04AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for this explanation, if nothing else, it seems to support the
> > > > > way in which I was interpreting managed = "in-band-status" to mean
> > > > > "enable in-band autoneg", but to be clear, I wasn't debating something
> > > > > about the way in which mvneta was doing things. But rather, I was
> > > > > debating why would *other* drivers do things differently such as to come
> > > > > to expect that a fixed-link master + an in-band-status CPU port, or the
> > > > > other way around, may be compatible with each other.
> > > > 
> > > > Please note that phylink makes a DT specification including both a
> > > > fixed-link descriptor and a managed in-band-status property illegal
> > > > because these are two different modes of operating the link, and they
> > > > conflict with each other.
> > > 
> > > Ok, thank you for this information which I already knew, what is the context?
> > 
> > FFS. You're the one who's writing emails to me that include *both*
> > "fixed-link" and "in-band-status" together. I'm pointing out that
> > specifying that in DT for a port together is not permitted.
> > 
> > And here I give up reading this email. Sorry, I'm too frustrated
> > with this nitpicking, and too frustrated with spending hours writing a
> > reply only to have it torn apart.
> 
> This is becoming toxic.

It is toxic, because I'm spending longer and longer replying to each of
your emails, because every time I do, you ask more and more questions
despite my best effort to provide clear answers. This cycle of forever
growing emails that take longer and longer to reply to can not continue.

When I spend three hours trying to compose a reply to your email, and
then get a reply that tears it apart, needing another multi-hour effort
to reply, it has to stop. Sorry, but it has to.

I am not going to spend endless hours composing one reply after another
on the same topic - I will just stop trying to compose a reply to an
email if its turning into another multi-hour effort leaving the rest of
the email unreplied - and in many cases even unread. Sorry, but I don't
have the patience.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 04:44:44PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 08:12:04AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for this explanation, if nothing else, it seems to support the
> > > > > way in which I was interpreting managed = "in-band-status" to mean
> > > > > "enable in-band autoneg", but to be clear, I wasn't debating something
> > > > > about the way in which mvneta was doing things. But rather, I was
> > > > > debating why would *other* drivers do things differently such as to come
> > > > > to expect that a fixed-link master + an in-band-status CPU port, or the
> > > > > other way around, may be compatible with each other.
> > > > 
> > > > Please note that phylink makes a DT specification including both a
> > > > fixed-link descriptor and a managed in-band-status property illegal
> > > > because these are two different modes of operating the link, and they
> > > > conflict with each other.
> > > 
> > > Ok, thank you for this information which I already knew, what is the context?
> > 
> > FFS. You're the one who's writing emails to me that include *both*
> > "fixed-link" and "in-band-status" together. I'm pointing out that
> > specifying that in DT for a port together is not permitted.
> > 
> > And here I give up reading this email. Sorry, I'm too frustrated
> > with this nitpicking, and too frustrated with spending hours writing a
> > reply only to have it torn apart.
> 
> This is becoming toxic.

It is toxic, because I'm spending longer and longer replying to each of
your emails, because every time I do, you ask more and more questions
despite my best effort to provide clear answers. This cycle of forever
growing emails that take longer and longer to reply to can not continue.

When I spend three hours trying to compose a reply to your email, and
then get a reply that tears it apart, needing another multi-hour effort
to reply, it has to stop. Sorry, but it has to.

I am not going to spend endless hours composing one reply after another
on the same topic - I will just stop trying to compose a reply to an
email if its turning into another multi-hour effort leaving the rest of
the email unreplied - and in many cases even unread. Sorry, but I don't
have the patience.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Marek Behún]

Dear Vladimir,

am I understanding correctly that your main objection to this series is
that it may break other drivers? Do you think it would be okay if I
changed it so that only mv88e6xxx driver would ask for phylink for
CPU/DSA ports?

I would really like to have phylink's PCS code taking care of mv88e6xxx
CPU and DSA ports.

Marek

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Marek Behún]

Dear Vladimir,

am I understanding correctly that your main objection to this series is
that it may break other drivers? Do you think it would be okay if I
changed it so that only mv88e6xxx driver would ask for phylink for
CPU/DSA ports?

I would really like to have phylink's PCS code taking care of mv88e6xxx
CPU and DSA ports.

Marek

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Vladimir Oltean]

Hello Marek,

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> Dear Vladimir,
> 
> am I understanding correctly that your main objection to this series is
> that it may break other drivers?

Yes, but I'm not saying this in a way that tries to make it impossible
to make progress. But rather, I've identified 8 drivers which may lack
complete device tree descriptions:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220723164635.1621911-1-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com/

Simply put, I have no indication that the changes presented here are a
step in the right direction for the remaining 7 drivers. Each and every
single one of them needs to be studied and discussed separately; the
discussion has already started for some.

> Do you think it would be okay if I changed it so that only mv88e6xxx
> driver would ask for phylink for CPU/DSA ports?

It would be a good start, yes. What I could do is I could move my
validation logic from the patch linked above into dsa_port_link_register_of().
Running that logic would let DSA know which properties are missing.
Then, for drivers that don't enforce validation, we could add new
dsa_switch_ops that separately ask the driver what phy-mode to use
(if missing) and what speed/duplex to use (if missing). Drivers can use
whatever heuristic is appropriate for their deployments to respond to this.
If the phy-mode and speed/duplex are finally resolved, DSA can create a
software_node and register with phylink that way. Otherwise, DSA will
continue to do what it does today, i.e. skip phylink registration.

How does that sound?

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink

[Vladimir Oltean]

Hello Marek,

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> Dear Vladimir,
> 
> am I understanding correctly that your main objection to this series is
> that it may break other drivers?

Yes, but I'm not saying this in a way that tries to make it impossible
to make progress. But rather, I've identified 8 drivers which may lack
complete device tree descriptions:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220723164635.1621911-1-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com/

Simply put, I have no indication that the changes presented here are a
step in the right direction for the remaining 7 drivers. Each and every
single one of them needs to be studied and discussed separately; the
discussion has already started for some.

> Do you think it would be okay if I changed it so that only mv88e6xxx
> driver would ask for phylink for CPU/DSA ports?

It would be a good start, yes. What I could do is I could move my
validation logic from the patch linked above into dsa_port_link_register_of().
Running that logic would let DSA know which properties are missing.
Then, for drivers that don't enforce validation, we could add new
dsa_switch_ops that separately ask the driver what phy-mode to use
(if missing) and what speed/duplex to use (if missing). Drivers can use
whatever heuristic is appropriate for their deployments to respond to this.
If the phy-mode and speed/duplex are finally resolved, DSA can create a
software_node and register with phylink that way. Otherwise, DSA will
continue to do what it does today, i.e. skip phylink registration.

How does that sound?

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 09:18:00AM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 23:48:21 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:39:42PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> > > On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:24:09 +0300
> > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

...

> > > 2. even if there was a problem with name collision, I think the place
> > >    that needs to be fixed is swnode system. What use are swnodes if
> > >    they cannot be used like this?  
> > 
> > Precisely, that's why I don't want to introduce an API that needs to be fixed.
> 
> Aha, so you want to ensure that root swnodes are created with unique
> name?
> 
> Can't we just make it so that named software node must have a parent?

That's my proposal, but it might have a downside effect on the existing users
(chtwc_int33fe).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] software node: allow named software node to be created

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 09:18:00AM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 23:48:21 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:39:42PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> > > On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:24:09 +0300
> > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

...

> > > 2. even if there was a problem with name collision, I think the place
> > >    that needs to be fixed is swnode system. What use are swnodes if
> > >    they cannot be used like this?  
> > 
> > Precisely, that's why I don't want to introduce an API that needs to be fixed.
> 
> Aha, so you want to ensure that root swnodes are created with unique
> name?
> 
> Can't we just make it so that named software node must have a parent?

That's my proposal, but it might have a downside effect on the existing users
(chtwc_int33fe).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel