Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:12:19 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Fabien Parent <fparent@...libre.com>,
        Iyappan Subramanian <iyappan@...amperecomputing.com>,
        Quan Nguyen <quan@...amperecomputing.com>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Stephane Le Provost <stephane.leprovost@...iatek.com>,
        Keyur Chudgar <keyur@...amperecomputing.com>,
        Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC..." 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Perepech <andrew.perepech@...iatek.com>,
        Pedro Tsai <pedro.tsai@...iatek.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] net: phy: add PHY regulator support

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 05:57:19PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 06:27:06PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > wt., 23 cze 2020 o 11:56 Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> > <linux@...linux.org.uk> napisał(a):
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:46:15AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > wt., 23 cze 2020 o 11:43 Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> > > > <linux@...linux.org.uk> napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:41:11AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > > > pon., 22 cze 2020 o 15:29 Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> > > > > > <linux@...linux.org.uk> napisał(a):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip!]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is likely to cause issues for some PHY drivers.  Note that we have
> > > > > > > some PHY drivers which register a temperature sensor in the probe
> > > > > > > function, which means they can be accessed independently of the lifetime
> > > > > > > of the PHY bound to the network driver (which may only be while the
> > > > > > > network device is "up".)  We certainly do not want hwmon failing just
> > > > > > > because the network device is down.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's kind of worked around for the reset stuff, because there are two
> > > > > > > layers to that: the mdio device layer reset support which knows nothing
> > > > > > > of the PHY binding state to the network driver, and the phylib reset
> > > > > > > support, but it is not nice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regulators are reference counted so if the hwmon driver enables it
> > > > > > using mdio_device_power_on() it will stay on even after the PHY driver
> > > > > > calls phy_device_power_off(), right? Am I missing something?
> > > > >
> > > > > If that is true, you will need to audit the PHY drivers to add that.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This change doesn't have any effect on devices which don't have a
> > > > regulator assigned in DT though. The one I'm adding in the last patch
> > > > is the first to use this.
> > >
> > > It's quality of implementation.
> > >
> > > Should we wait for someone else to make use of the new regulator
> > > support that has been added with a PHY that uses hwmon, and they
> > > don't realise that it breaks hwmon on it, and several kernel versions
> > > go by without it being noticed.  It will only be a noticable issue
> > > when the associated network device is down, and that network device
> > > driver detaches from the PHY, so _is_ likely not to be noticed.
> > >
> > > Or should we do a small amount of work now to properly implement
> > > regulator support, which includes a trivial grep for "hwmon" amongst
> > > the PHY drivers, and add the necessary call to avoid the regulator
> > > being shut off.
> > >
> > 
> > I'm not sure what the correct approach is here. Provide some helper
> > that, when called, would increase the regulator's reference count even
> > more to keep it enabled from the moment hwmon is registered to when
> > the driver is detached?
> 
> I think a PHY driver needs the utility to control this.  We need to be
> careful here with naming, because phylib is not the only code in the
> kernel that uses the phy_ prefix.
> 
> If we had runtime PM support for PHYs, with regulator support hooked
> into runtime PM, then we already have standard interfaces that drivers
> can use to control whether the device gets powered down.

Other ideas:

- using genpd outside of the SoC to provide power domain management.
  This is already hooked into runtime PM, but would need their
  agreement, a genpd provider written, and runtime PM added to phylib.

- if we're going for some core driver model approach, then the driver
  model only knows when devices are bound and unbound to their driver,
  it knows nothing of phylib's attach/detach from the network
  interface.  If we want to shut off power when a PHY is not attached,
  we would likely need some kind of interface to do that.

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists