[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200319223544.GA14699@wkz-x280>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 23:35:44 +0100
From: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, f.fainelli@...il.com, hkallweit1@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] net: phy: marvell smi2usb mdio controller
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 04:49:37PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 02:59:52PM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> > An MDIO controller present on development boards for Marvell switches
> > from the Link Street (88E6xxx) family.
> >
> > Using this module, you can use the following setup as a development
> > platform for switchdev and DSA related work.
> >
> > .-------. .-----------------.
> > | USB----USB |
> > | SoC | | 88E6390X-DB ETH1-10
> > | ETH----ETH0 |
> > '-------' '-----------------'
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
> > ---
> >
> > v1->v2:
> > - Reverse christmas tree ordering of local variables.
> >
> > ---
> > MAINTAINERS | 1 +
> > drivers/net/phy/Kconfig | 7 ++
> > drivers/net/phy/Makefile | 1 +
> > drivers/net/phy/mdio-smi2usb.c | 137 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 4 files changed, 146 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/net/phy/mdio-smi2usb.c
>
> Hi Tobias
>
> Where does the name mii2usb come from? To me, it seems to be the wrong
> way around, it is USB to MII. I suppose the Marvell Switch team could
> of given it this name, for them the switch is the centre of their
> world, and things connect to it?
The name is indeed coming from Marvell. They use the term SMI over
MDIO in most of their software and documentation. I had the same
reaction to the name regarding the ordering of the terms, but felt it
was best to go with the vendor's choice.
> I'm just wondering if we should actually ignore Marvell and call it
> usb2mii?
>
> I also think there should be a marvell prefix in the name, since were
> could be other implementations of USB/MII. mvusb2mii?
You're absolutely right that there should be an mv prefix in
there. Calling it usb2mii seems like a misnomer though. At least for
me, MII relates more to the data interface between a MAC and a PHY,
whereas MDIO or SMI refers to the control interface (MDC/MDIO).
How about just mdio-mvusb?
> Do you know how this is implemented? Is it a product you can purchase?
> Or a microcontroller on the board which implements this? It would be
> an interesting product, especially on x86 machines which generally end
> up doing bit-banging because of the lack of drivers using kernel MDIO.
On the 88E6390X-DB, I know that there is a chip by the USB port that
is probably either an MCU or a small FPGA. I can have a closer look at
it when I'm at the office tomorrow if you'd like. I also remember
seeing some docs from Marvell which seemed to indicate that they have
a standalone product providing only the USB-to-MDIO functionality.
The x86 use-case is interesting. It would be even more so if there was
some way of loading a DSA DT fragment so that you could hook it up to
your machine's Ethernet port.
> > +static int smi2usb_probe(struct usb_interface *interface,
> > + const struct usb_device_id *id)
> > +{
> > + struct device *dev = &interface->dev;
> > + struct mii_bus *mdio;
> > + struct smi2usb *smi;
> > + int err = -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + mdio = devm_mdiobus_alloc_size(dev, sizeof(*smi));
> > + if (!mdio)
> > + goto err;
> > +
>
> ...
>
>
> > +static void smi2usb_disconnect(struct usb_interface *interface)
> > +{
> > + struct smi2usb *smi;
> > +
> > + smi = usb_get_intfdata(interface);
> > + mdiobus_unregister(smi->mdio);
> > + usb_set_intfdata(interface, NULL);
> > +
> > + usb_put_intf(interface);
> > + usb_put_dev(interface_to_usbdev(interface));
> > +}
>
> I don't know enough about USB. Does disconnect have the same semantics
> remove()? You used devm_mdiobus_alloc_size() to allocate the bus
> structure. Will it get freed after disconnect? I've had USB devices
> connected via flaky USB hubs and they have repeatedly disappeared and
> reappeared. I wonder if in that case you are leaking memory if
> disconnect does not release the memory?
Disclaimer: This is my first ever USB driver.
I assumed that since we're removing 'interface', 'interface->dev' will
be removed as well and thus calling all devm hooks.
> > + usb_put_intf(interface);
> > + usb_put_dev(interface_to_usbdev(interface));
> > +}
>
> Another USB novice question. Is this safe? Could the put of interface
> cause it to be destroyed? Then interface_to_usbdev() is called on
> invalid memory?
That does indeed look scary. I inverted the order of the calls to the
_get_ functions, which I got from the USB skeleton driver. I'll try to
review some other drivers to see if I can figure this out.
> Maybe this should be cross posted to a USB mailing list, so we can get
> the USB aspects reviewed. The MDIO bits seem good to me.
Good idea. Any chance you can help an LKML rookie out? How does one go
about that? Do I simply reply to this thread and add the USB list, or
do I post the patches again as a new series? Any special tags? Is
there any documentation available?
> Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists