[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aEwfME3dYisQtdCj@pidgin.makrotopia.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:55:46 +0200
From: Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>,
Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Vineeth Karumanchi <vineeth.karumanchi@....com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
Lei Wei <quic_leiwei@...cinc.com>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>,
Radhey Shyam Pandey <radhey.shyam.pandey@....com>,
Robert Hancock <robert.hancock@...ian.com>,
John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>,
Robert Marko <robimarko@...il.com>
Subject: [RFC] comparing the propesed implementation for standalone PCS
drivers
Hi netdev folks,
there are currently 2 competing implementations for the groundworks to
support standalone PCS drivers.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=970582&state=%2A&archive=both
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=961784&state=%2A&archive=both
They both kinda stalled due to a lack of feedback in the past 2 months
since they have been published.
Merging the 2 implementation is not a viable option due to rather large
architecture differences:
| Sean | Ansuel
--------------------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------
Architecture | Standalone subsystem | Built into phylink
Need OPs wrapped | Yes | No
resource lifecycle | New subsystem | phylink
Supports hot remove | Yes | Yes
Supports hot add | Yes (*) | Yes
provides generic select_pcs | No | Yes
support for #pcs-cell-cells | No | Yes
allows migrating legacy drivers | Yes | Yes
comes with tested migrations | Yes | No
(*) requires MAC driver to also unload and subsequent re-probe for link
to work again
Obviously both architectures have pros and cons, here an incomplete and
certainly biased list (please help completing it and discussing all
details):
Standalone Subsystem (Sean)
pros
====
* phylink code (mostly) untouched
* doesn't burden systems which don't use dedicated PCS drivers
* series provides tested migrations for all Ethernet drivers currently
using dedicated PCS drivers
cons
====
* needs wrapper for each PCS OP
* more complex resource management (malloc/free)
* hot add and PCS showing up late (eg. due to deferred probe) are
problematic
* phylink is anyway the only user of that new subsystem
phylink-managed standalone PCS drivers (Ansuel)
pros
====
* trivial resource management
* no wrappers needed
* full support for hot-add and deferred probe
* avoids code duplication by providing generic select_pcs
implementation
* supports devices which provide more than one PCS port per device
('#pcs-cell-cells')
cons
====
* inclusion in phylink means more (dead) code on platforms not using
dedicated PCS
* series does not provide migrations for existing drivers
(but that can be done after)
* probably a bit harder to review as one needs to know phylink very well
It would be great if more people can take a look and help deciding the
general direction to go. There are many drivers awaiting merge which
require such infrastructure (most are fine with either of the two), some
for more than a year by now.
Thank you!
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists