Message-ID: <20201130145435.GY1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:54:35 +0000
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
        Bjarni Jonasson <bjarni.jonasson@...rochip.com>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Microsemi List <microsemi@...ts.bootlin.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] net: sparx5: Add Sparx5 switchdev driver

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 03:39:08PM +0100, Steen Hegelund wrote:
> On 29.11.2020 11:28, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 10:52:45AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 10:28:28PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 08:06:16PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > > > +static void sparx5_phylink_mac_config(struct phylink_config *config,
> > > > > > +                                     unsigned int mode,
> > > > > > +                                     const struct phylink_link_state *state)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +       struct sparx5_port *port = netdev_priv(to_net_dev(config->dev));
> > > > > > +       struct sparx5_port_config conf;
> > > > > > +       int err = 0;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +       conf = port->conf;
> > > > > > +       conf.autoneg = state->an_enabled;
> > > > > > +       conf.pause = state->pause;
> > > > > > +       conf.duplex = state->duplex;
> > > > > > +       conf.power_down = false;
> > > > > > +       conf.portmode = state->interface;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +       if (state->speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN) {
> > > > > > +               /* When a SFP is plugged in we use capabilities to
> > > > > > +                * default to the highest supported speed
> > > > > > +                */
> > > > >
> > > > > This looks suspicious.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it looks highly suspicious. The fact that
> > > > sparx5_phylink_mac_link_up() is empty, and sparx5_phylink_mac_config()
> > > > does all the work suggests that this was developed before the phylink
> > > > re-organisation, and this code hasn't been updated for it.
> > > >
> > > > Any new code for the kernel really ought to be updated for the new
> > > > phylink methodology before it is accepted.
> > > >
> > > > Looking at sparx5_port_config(), it also seems to use
> > > > PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_1000BASEX for both 1000BASE-X and 2500BASE-X. All
> > > > very well for the driver to do that internally, but it's confusing
> > > > when it comes to reviewing this stuff, especially when people outside
> > > > of the driver (such as myself) reviewing it need to understand what's
> > > > going on with the configuration.
> > > 
> > > There are other issues too.
> > > 
> > > Looking at sparx5_get_1000basex_status(), we have:
> > > 
> > >  +       status->link = DEV2G5_PCS1G_LINK_STATUS_LINK_STATUS_GET(value) |
> > >  +                      DEV2G5_PCS1G_LINK_STATUS_SYNC_STATUS_GET(value);
> > > 
> > > Why is the link status the logical OR of these?
> > > 
> > >  +                       if ((lp_abil >> 8) & 1) /* symmetric pause */
> > >  +                               status->pause = MLO_PAUSE_RX | MLO_PAUSE_TX;
> > >  +                       if (lp_abil & (1 << 7)) /* asymmetric pause */
> > >  +                               status->pause |= MLO_PAUSE_RX;
> > > 
> > > is actually wrong, and I see I need to improve the documentation for
> > > mac_pcs_get_state(). The intention in the documentation was concerning
> > > hardware that indicated the _resolved_ status of pause modes. It was
> > > not intended that drivers resolve the pause modes themselves.
> > > 
> > > Even so, the above is still wrong; it takes no account of what is being
> > > advertised at the local end. If one looks at the implementation in
> > > phylink_decode_c37_word(), one will notice there is code to deal with
> > > this.
> > > 
> > > I think we ought to make phylink_decode_c37_word() and
> > > phylink_decode_sgmii_word() public functions, and then this driver can
> > > use these helpers to decode the link partner advertisement to the
> > > phylink state.
> > > 
> > > Does the driver need to provide an ethtool .get_link function? That
> > > seems to bypass phylink. Why can't ethtool_op_get_link() be used?
> > > 
> > > I think if ethtool_op_get_link() is used, we then have just one caller
> > > for sparx5_get_port_status(), which means "struct sparx5_port_status"
> > > can be eliminated and the code cleaned up to use the phylink decoding
> > > helpers.
> > 
> > (Sorry, I keep spotting bits in the code - it's really not an easy
> > chunk of code to review.)
> > 
> > I'm also not sure that this is really correct:
> > 
> > +       status->serdes_link = !phy_validate(port->serdes, PHY_MODE_ETHERNET,
> > +                                           port->conf.portmode, NULL);
> > 
> > The documentation for phy_validate() says:
> > 
> > * Used to check that the current set of parameters can be handled by
> > * the phy. Implementations are free to tune the parameters passed as
> > * arguments if needed by some implementation detail or
> > * constraints. It will not change any actual configuration of the
> > * PHY, so calling it as many times as deemed fit will have no side
> > * effect.
> > 
> > and clearly, passing NULL for opts, gives the function no opportunity
> > to do what it's intended, so phy_validate() is being used for some
> > other purpose than that which the drivers/phy subsystem intends it to
> > be used for.
> 
> Hi Russell,
> 
> Yes this is a bit of an overload of the phy_validate().
> 
> The Serdes driver validates the portmode, and if OK, it returns the
> current state of the link (bool), so that the client (SwitchDev) can know if the
> link parameters so far results in a operational link. It does not change
> any configuration.

This seems very strange. What is the point of asking for a portmode
which could be different from the current mode, and returning the
link state for the current mode?

I don't think that there is an alternative interface - maybe it
would be a better idea to propose a new interface to the drivers/phy
maintainers, rather than bodging an existing interface for your
needs?

Thanks.

-- 
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