Re: [RFC net-next PATCH 10/16] net: macb: Move PCS settings to PCS callbacks

[Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@seco.com>]

On 10/7/21 12:23 PM, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 12:29:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
>> Here's a patch which illustrates roughly what I'm thinking at the
>> moment - only build tested.
>> 
>> mac_select_pcs() should not ever fail in phylink_major_config() - that
>> would be a bug. I've hooked mac_select_pcs() also into the validate
>> function so we can catch problems there, but we will need to involve
>> the PCS in the interface selection for SFPs etc.
>> 
>> Note that mac_select_pcs() must be inconsequential - it's asking the
>> MAC which PCS it wishes to use for the interface mode.
>> 
>> I am still very much undecided whether we wish phylink to parse the
>> pcs-handle property and if present, override the MAC - I feel that
>> logic depends in the MAC driver, since a single PCS can be very
>> restrictive in terms of what interface modes are supportable. If the
>> MAC wishes pcs-handle to override its internal ones, then it can
>> always do:
>> 
>> 	if (port->external_pcs)
>> 		return port->external_pcs;
>> 
>> in its mac_select_pcs() implementation. This gives us a bit of future
>> flexibility.
>> 
>> If we parse pcs-handle in phylink, then if we end up with multiple PCS
>> to choose from, we then need to work out how to either allow the MAC
>> driver to tell phylink not to parse pcs-handle, or we need some way for
>> phylink to ask the MAC "these are the PCS I have, which one should I
>> use" which is yet another interface.
>> 
>> What I don't like about the patch is the need to query the PCS based on
>> interface - when we have a SFP plugged in, it may support multiple
>> interfaces. I think we still need the MAC to restrict what it returns
>> in its validate() method according to the group of PCS that it has
>> available for the SFP interface selection to work properly. Things in
>> this regard should become easier _if_ I can switch phylink over to
>> selecting interface based on phy_interface_t bitmaps rather than the
>> current bodge using ethtool link modes, but that needs changes to phylib
>> and all MAC drivers, otherwise we have to support two entirely separate
>> ways to select the interface mode.
>> 
>> My argument against that is... I'll end up converting the network
>> interfaces that I use to the new implementation, and the old version
>> will start to rot. I've already stopped testing phylink without a PCS
>> attached for this very reason. The more legacy code we keep, the worse
>> this problem becomes.
> 
> Having finished off the SFP side of the phy_interface_t bitmap
> (http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/log/?h=net-queue)
> and I think the mac_select_pcs() approach will work.
> 
> See commit
> http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=net-queue&id=3e0d51c361f5191111af206e3ed024d4367fce78
> where we have a set of phy_interface_t to choose one from, and if
> we add PCS selection into that logic, the loop becomes:
> 
> static phy_interface_t phylink_select_interface(struct phylink *pl,
> 						const unsigned long *intf
> 						const char *intf_name)
> {
> 	phy_interface_t interface, intf;
> 
> 	...
> 
> 	interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;
> 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(phylink_sfp_interface_preference); i++) {
> 		intf = phylink_sfp_interface_preference[i];
> 
> 		if (!test_bit(intf, u))
> 			continue;
> 
> 		pcs = pl->pcs;
> 		if (pl->mac_ops->mac_select_pcs) {
> 			pcs = pl->mac_ops->mac_select_pcs(pl->config, intf);
> 			if (!pcs)
> 				continue;
> 		}
> 
> 		if (pcs && !test_bit(intf, pcs->supported_interfaces))
> 			continue;
> 
> 		interface = intf;
> 		break;
> 	}
> 	...
> }
> 
> The alternative would be to move some of that logic into
> phylink_sfp_config_nophy(), and will mean knocking out bits from
> the mask supplied to phylink_select_interface() each time we select
> an interface mode that the PCS doesn't support... which sounds rather
> more yucky to me.
> 

With appropriate helper functions, I don't think we would need to have a
separate mac_select_pcs callback:

probe()
{
	priv->pl = phylink_create();
	priv->pcs1 = my_internal_pcs;
	priv->pcs2 = phylink_find_pcs();
}

validate()
{
	switch (state->interface) {
	case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA:
	case PHY_INTERFACE_GMII:
		phylink_set(mask, 1000baseT_Full);
		phylink_set(mask, 1000baseX_Full);
		if (one)
			break;
		fallthrough;
	default:
		matched = phylink_set_pcs_modes(mask, priv->pcs1, state);
		matched ||= phylink_set_pcs_modes(mask, priv->pcs2, state);
		if (matched)
			break;
		bitmap_zero(supported, __ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_MASK_NBITS);
		return;
	}
	bitmap_and(supported, supported, mask, __ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_MASK_NBITS);
}

prepare()
{
	switch (state->interface) {
	case PHY_INTERFACE_GMII:
		enable_gmii();
		break;
	default:
		if (phylink_attach_matching_pcs(priv->pl, priv->pcs1, state->interface)) {
			enable_internal_pcs();
			break;
		}
		if (phylink_attach_matching_pcs(priv->pl, priv->pcs2, state->interface)) {
			enable_external_pcs();
			break;	
		}
		BUG();
	}
}

int phylink_set_interface_mode(mask, iface)
{
	/* switch statement from phylink_parse_mode here */
}

bool phylink_set_pcs_modes(mask, pcs, state)
{
	if (state->interface != PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA) {
		if (!test_bit(state->interface, pcs->supported_interfaces))
			return false;
		phylink_set_interface_mode(mask, state->interface);
		return true;
	}
	
	for (i = 0; i < PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MAX; i++) {
		if (test_bit(i, pcs->supported_interfaces))
			phylink_set_interface_mode(mask, state->interface);
	}
	return true;
}

bool phylink_attach_matching_pcs(pl, pcs, iface)
{
	if (!test_bit(iface, pcs->supported_interfaces))
		return false;
	phylink_set_pcs(pl, pcs);
	return true;
}

I think this has some advantages over a separate mac_select_pcs():

- In validate() you get all the available interfaces.
- The MAC can set the priority of its PCSs however it likes, which is
   probably good enough for almost every case.
- The MAC doesn't care about what interfaces the PCSs actually support.
- phylink can do whatever logic it wants for selection under the hood.
- From phylink's POV, drivers behave the same way no matter whether they
   use these helpers or whether they just say "If we use SGMII, then use
   our internal PCS)".

--Sean