[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 15:49:24 +0100
From: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc: poros@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch,
f.fainelli@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] phy: avoid unnecessary link-up delay in polling
mode
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 21:26:54 +0100
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com> wrote:
> On 01.02.2020 11:25, Ivan Vecera wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 21:50:48 +0100
> > Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> 0x7949
> >>> [ 24.154174] xgene-mii-rgmii:03: genphy_update_link(), line: 1927, link: 0
> >>>
> >>> . supressed 3 same messages in T0+1,2,3s
> >>>
> >>> [ 28.609822] xgene-mii-rgmii:03: genphy_update_link(), line: 1895, link: 0
> >>> [ 28.629906] xgene-mii-rgmii:03: genphy_update_link(), line: 1917, status:
> >>> 0x7969
> >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ detected BMSR_ANEGCOMPLETE but not BMSR_LSTATUS
> >>> [ 28.644590] xgene-mii-rgmii:03: genphy_update_link(), line: 1921, status:
> >>> 0x796d
> >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ here is detected BMSR_ANEGCOMPLETE and BMSR_LSTATUS
> >>> [ 28.658681] xgene-mii-rgmii:03: genphy_update_link(), line: 1927, link: 1
> >>>
> >>
> >> I see, thanks. Strange behavior of the PHY. Did you test also with other PHY's
> >> whether they behave the same?
> >
> > Yeah, it's strange... we could try different PHYs but anyway the double read was
> > removed for polling mode to detect momentary link drops but it make sense only
> > when phy->link is not 0. Thoughts?
> >
> > Ivan
> >
> I checked with the internal PHY of a Realtek NIC and it showed the same behavior.
> So it seems that Realtek PHY's behave like this in general. Therefore I'm fine
> with the patch. Just two things:
> - Add details about this quirky behavior to the commit description.
> - Resubmit annotated as net-next once net-next is open again. It's an improvement,
> not a fix.
LGTM. Thanks for confirmation.
Ivan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists