All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH net-next] net: sfp: cope with SFPs that set both LOS normal and LOS inverted
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 10:58:32 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1kyYQa-0004iR-CU@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)

The SFP MSA defines two option bits in byte 65 to indicate how the
Rx_LOS signal on SFP pin 8 behaves:

bit 2 - Loss of Signal implemented, signal inverted from standard
        definition in SFP MSA (often called "Signal Detect").
bit 1 - Loss of Signal implemented, signal as defined in SFP MSA
        (often called "Rx_LOS").

Clearly, setting both bits results in a meaningless situation: it would
mean that LOS is implemented in both the normal sense (1 = signal loss)
and inverted sense (0 = signal loss).

Unfortunately, there are modules out there which set both bits, which
will be initially interpret as "inverted" sense, and then, if the LOS
signal changes state, we will toggle between LINK_UP and WAIT_LOS
states.

Change our LOS handling to give well defined behaviour: only interpret
these bits as meaningful if exactly one is set, otherwise treat it as
if LOS is not implemented.

Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
---
 drivers/net/phy/sfp.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
index 374351de2063..b2a5ed6915fa 100644
--- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
+++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
@@ -1534,15 +1534,19 @@ static void sfp_sm_link_down(struct sfp *sfp)
 
 static void sfp_sm_link_check_los(struct sfp *sfp)
 {
-	unsigned int los = sfp->state & SFP_F_LOS;
+	const __be16 los_inverted = cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED);
+	const __be16 los_normal = cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_NORMAL);
+	__be16 los_options = sfp->id.ext.options & (los_inverted | los_normal);
+	bool los = false;
 
 	/* If neither SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED nor SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_NORMAL
-	 * are set, we assume that no LOS signal is available.
+	 * are set, we assume that no LOS signal is available. If both are
+	 * set, we assume LOS is not implemented (and is meaningless.)
 	 */
-	if (sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED))
-		los ^= SFP_F_LOS;
-	else if (!(sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_NORMAL)))
-		los = 0;
+	if (los_options == los_inverted)
+		los = !(sfp->state & SFP_F_LOS);
+	else if (los_options == los_normal)
+		los = !!(sfp->state & SFP_F_LOS);
 
 	if (los)
 		sfp_sm_next(sfp, SFP_S_WAIT_LOS, 0);
@@ -1552,18 +1556,22 @@ static void sfp_sm_link_check_los(struct sfp *sfp)
 
 static bool sfp_los_event_active(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int event)
 {
-	return (sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED) &&
-		event == SFP_E_LOS_LOW) ||
-	       (sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_NORMAL) &&
-		event == SFP_E_LOS_HIGH);
+	const __be16 los_inverted = cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED);
+	const __be16 los_normal = cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_NORMAL);
+	__be16 los_options = sfp->id.ext.options & (los_inverted | los_normal);
+
+	return (los_options == los_inverted && event == SFP_E_LOS_LOW) ||
+	       (los_options == los_normal && event == SFP_E_LOS_HIGH);
 }
 
 static bool sfp_los_event_inactive(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int event)
 {
-	return (sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED) &&
-		event == SFP_E_LOS_HIGH) ||
-	       (sfp->id.ext.options & cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_NORMAL) &&
-		event == SFP_E_LOS_LOW);
+	const __be16 los_inverted = cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED);
+	const __be16 los_normal = cpu_to_be16(SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_NORMAL);
+	__be16 los_options = sfp->id.ext.options & (los_inverted | los_normal);
+
+	return (los_options == los_inverted && event == SFP_E_LOS_HIGH) ||
+	       (los_options == los_normal && event == SFP_E_LOS_LOW);
 }
 
 static void sfp_sm_fault(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int next_state, bool warn)
-- 
2.20.1


             reply	other threads:[~2021-01-10 10:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-01-10 10:58 Russell King [this message]
2021-01-10 16:48 ` [PATCH net-next] net: sfp: cope with SFPs that set both LOS normal and LOS inverted Andrew Lunn
2021-01-12  0:19   ` Jakub Kicinski

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=E1kyYQa-0004iR-CU@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk \
    --to=rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.