Re: [PATCH] net: ethernet: fec: Add missing SPEED_

From: LABBE Corentin <clabbe@baylibre.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc: andrew@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net, fugang.duan@nxp.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ethernet: fec: Add missing SPEED_
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:42:19 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181019144219.GA8442@Red> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5cb0731b-83c5-5ed5-d022-98f8627d1737@gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:38:32PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 10/18/2018 12:16 PM, LABBE Corentin wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:55:49AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >> On 10/18/2018 11:47 AM, LABBE Corentin wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:39:24AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >>>> On 10/18/2018 08:05 AM, Corentin Labbe wrote:
> >>>>> Since commit 58056c1e1b0e ("net: ethernet: Use phy_set_max_speed() to limit advertised speed"), the fec driver is unable to get any link.
> >>>>> This is due to missing SPEED_.
> >>>>
> >>>> But SPEED_1000 is defined in include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h as 1000, so
> >>>> surely this would amount to the same code paths being taken or am I
> >>>> missing something here?
> >>>
> >>> The bisect session pointed your patch, reverting it fix the issue.
> >>> BUT since the fix seemed trivial I sent the patch without more test then compile it.
> >>> Sorry, I have just found some minutes ago that it didnt fix the issue.
> >>>
> >>> But your patch is still the cause for sure.
> >>>
> >>
> >> What you are writing is really lowering the confidence level, first
> >> Andrew is the author of that patch, and second "just compiling" and
> >> pretending this fixes a problem when it does not is not quite what I
> >> would expect.
> >>
> >> I don't have a problem helping you find the solution or the right fix
> >> though, even if it is not my patch, but please get the author and actual
> >> problem right so we can move forward in confidence, thanks!
> > 
> > Sorry again, I wanted to acknoledge my error but I did it too fast and late.
> > And sorry to have confound you with Andrew.
> 
> No worries, here to help, let us know what your bisection points to. THanks
> -- 

So I can now confirm that adding "phy_remove_link_mode(phy_dev, ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_Asym_Pause_BIT);" fix the issue cause by 58056c1e1b0e.
The second problem (long time to got link) was due to my change of CONF_CARRIER_TIMEOUT.
I still dont understand why setting it to 3s (instead of 120) caused that.

I will send fixed patchs soon.

Regards