[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <90ce74ef-446c-9efd-7be4-43d180ceef85@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 07:26:19 +0100
From: Klaus Kudielka <klaus.kudielka@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@...ine-koenig.org>,
Tomas Hlavacek <tmshlvck@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] phylink: support for devices with MAC sharing SFP cage &
PHY (e.g. Turris Omnia)
On 31.12.18 18:43, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>
> The Marvell documentation is not public. I would have to check, but
> i think there is a bit which tells you. But as Florian pointed out,
> this can be indirectly controlled from software, in that a PHY which
> is configured down will never get link, in the same way an SFP with
> its receiver disabled will never get link. So software to enable one
> or the other would work.
>
>> Such a "generic" solution would be restricted (per MAC) to a
>> maximum of one SFP (fiber or copper), and one separate PHY, right?
>> The main difference between boards would be the switching logic.
>
> Yes, that seems a sensible restriction.
>
I might be able come up with a re-work of phylink.c, such that it can
manage two independent link configurations, and reconfigure the MAC upon
a switch. The actual switching would be modeled in the various existing
callbacks, based on a board-specific recipe (for the moment
sfp-module-present or first-link). ethtool will probably just see the
"active" link (i.e. the PHY/SFP connected to the MAC).
As far as I can see, this would make both the Omnia SFP and the Marvell
switches work as they were designed, without any interface change.
Additional userspace-driven control could be added at a later time, if
it turns out to be necessary.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists