[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d4580627-b619-21c5-ed37-47bfc7a6e241@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 23:04:26 +0200
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Realtek linux nic maintainers <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 07/10] r8169: migrate speed_down function to
phylib
On 03.07.2018 18:48, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>
> On 07/02/2018 02:31 PM, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> On 02.07.2018 23:20, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 09:37:08PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>>> Change rtl_speed_down() to use phylib.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c | 33 +++++++++++++---------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c
>>>> index 311321ee..807fbc75 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c
>>>> @@ -4240,6 +4240,10 @@ static void rtl8169_init_phy(struct net_device *dev, struct rtl8169_private *tp)
>>>> rtl_writephy(tp, 0x0b, 0x0000); //w 0x0b 15 0 0
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + /* We may have called rtl_speed_down before */
>>>> + dev->phydev->advertising = dev->phydev->supported;
>>>> + genphy_config_aneg(dev->phydev);
>>>> +
>>>> genphy_soft_reset(dev->phydev);
>>>>
>>>> rtl8169_set_speed(dev, AUTONEG_ENABLE, SPEED_1000, DUPLEX_FULL,
>>>> @@ -4323,28 +4327,21 @@ static void rtl_init_mdio_ops(struct rtl8169_private *tp)
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +#define BASET10 (ADVERTISED_10baseT_Half | ADVERTISED_10baseT_Full)
>>>> +#define BASET100 (ADVERTISED_100baseT_Half | ADVERTISED_100baseT_Full)
>>>> +#define BASET1000 (ADVERTISED_1000baseT_Half | ADVERTISED_1000baseT_Full)
>>>> +
>>>> static void rtl_speed_down(struct rtl8169_private *tp)
>>>> {
>>>> - u32 adv;
>>>> - int lpa;
>>>> + struct phy_device *phydev = tp->dev->phydev;
>>>> + u32 adv = phydev->lp_advertising & phydev->supported;
>>>>
>>>> - rtl_writephy(tp, 0x1f, 0x0000);
>>>> - lpa = rtl_readphy(tp, MII_LPA);
>>>> + if (adv & BASET10)
>>>> + phydev->advertising &= ~(BASET100 | BASET1000);
>>>> + else if (adv & BASET100)
>>>> + phydev->advertising &= ~BASET1000;
>>>>
>>>> - if (lpa & (LPA_10HALF | LPA_10FULL))
>>>> - adv = ADVERTISED_10baseT_Half | ADVERTISED_10baseT_Full;
>>>> - else if (lpa & (LPA_100HALF | LPA_100FULL))
>>>> - adv = ADVERTISED_10baseT_Half | ADVERTISED_10baseT_Full |
>>>> - ADVERTISED_100baseT_Half | ADVERTISED_100baseT_Full;
>>>> - else
>>>> - adv = ADVERTISED_10baseT_Half | ADVERTISED_10baseT_Full |
>>>> - ADVERTISED_100baseT_Half | ADVERTISED_100baseT_Full |
>>>> - (tp->mii.supports_gmii ?
>>>> - ADVERTISED_1000baseT_Half |
>>>> - ADVERTISED_1000baseT_Full : 0);
>>>> -
>>>> - rtl8169_set_speed(tp->dev, AUTONEG_ENABLE, SPEED_1000, DUPLEX_FULL,
>>>> - adv);
>>>> + genphy_config_aneg(phydev);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> It probably it is me being too tired, but i don't get what this is
>>> doing? Changing the local advertisement based on what the remote is
>>> advertising. Why?
>>>
>> It also took me some time to understand what this speed_down is doing.
>> If we suspend and wait for a WoL packet, then we don't have to burn all
>> the energy for a GBit connection. Therefore we switch to the lowest
>> speed supported by chip and link partner. This is done by removing
>> higher speeds from the advertised modes and restarting an autonego.
>
> This is something that the tg3 driver also does, we should probably
> consider doing this as part of a generic PHY library helpers since I was
> told by several HW engineers that usually 10Mbits for WoL is much more
> energy efficient.
>
Yes, I agree this should become part of phylib. I'd prefer to do it
after this r8169 patch series, will spend a few thoughts on how to
do it best, also considering your remark below.
Heiner
> One thing that bothers me a bit is that this should ideally be offered
> as both blocking and non-blocking options, because we might want to make
> sure that at the time we suspend, and we already had a link established,
> we successfully re-negotiate the link with the partner. I agree that
> there could be any sort of link disruption happening at any point though..
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists