Re: [PATCH net-next 06/16] net: pcs: xpcs: Avoid creating dummy XPCS MDIO device

From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
	Jose Abreu <joabreu@synopsys.com>,
	Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com>,
	Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com>,
	Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 06/16] net: pcs: xpcs: Avoid creating dummy XPCS MDIO device
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 14:50:58 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZW840qQMbVRto442@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e1806c15-757e-4af0-a8be-075aa77918c2@lunn.ch>

On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 02:52:24PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 02:31:41PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 10:49:47AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 01:35:27PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > > If the DW XPCS MDIO devices are either left unmasked for being auto-probed
> > > > or explicitly registered in the MDIO subsystem by means of the
> > > > mdiobus_register_board_info() method there is no point in creating the
> > > > dummy MDIO device instance in order to get the DW XPCS handler since the
> > > > MDIO core subsystem will create the device during the MDIO bus
> > > > registration procedure.
> > > 
> > 
> > > Please reword this overly long sentence.
> > 
> > Ok.
> > 
> > > 
> > > If they're left unmasked, what prevents them being created as PHY
> > > devices?
> > 
> > Not sure I fully get what you meant. If they are left unmasked the
> > MDIO-device descriptor will be created by the MDIO subsystem anyway.
> > What the point in creating another one?
> 
> Saying what Russell said, in a different way:
> 
> /*
>  * Return true if the child node is for a phy. It must either:
>  * o Compatible string of "ethernet-phy-idX.X"
>  * o Compatible string of "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c45"
>  * o Compatible string of "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22"
>  * o In the white list above (and issue a warning)
>  * o No compatibility string
>  *
>  * A device which is not a phy is expected to have a compatible string
>  * indicating what sort of device it is.
>  */
> bool of_mdiobus_child_is_phy(struct device_node *child)
> 
> So when walking the bus, if a node is found which fits these criteria,
> its assumed to be a PHY. 
> 
> Anything on the MDIO bus which is not a PHY needs to use a compatible.

Right. I'd actually forgotten about the firmware-based walking, and
was thinking more of the non-firmware bus scanning as the commit
message was talking about being _unmasked_ and the only mask we have
is bus->phy_mask.

It seems to me that this is yet another case of a really confusing
commit message making review harder than it needs to be.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!