[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <90623032-7012-d82b-2046-d9796727e53c@bang-olufsen.dk>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 18:04:34 +0000
From: Alvin Šipraga <ALSI@...g-olufsen.dk>
To: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"kernel-team@...roid.com" <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] net: dsa: rtl8366rb: Quick fix to work with
fw_devlink=on
On 8/26/21 7:26 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 4:29 AM Alvin Šipraga <ALSI@...g-olufsen.dk> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Saravana,
>>
>> From looking at the code, the Marvell DSA driver mv88e6xxx may also
>> suffer from the same problem if fw_devlink=on. Maybe somebody (Andrew?)
>> could test so that you know whether include a simlar patch to that
>> driver in your series.
>>
>> Other drivers may be effected too - as Andrew said in the other thread,
>> this is not an uncommon pattern for DSA drivers.
>>
>> On 8/26/21 9:45 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>> This is just a quick fix to make this driver work with fw_devlink=on.
>>> The proper fix might need a significant amount of rework of the driver
>>> of the framework to use a component device model.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
>>
>> With the caveat that it's a test with my RFC rtl8365mb subdriver...
>>
>> Tested-by: Alvin Šipraga <alsi@...g-olufsen.dk>
>
> Thanks for testing. And just to be sure we are all on the same page:
> Without this patch the PHYs get handled by the Generic PHY driver.
> With this patch, the PHYs are handled by their specific driver.
> Correct?
Yes, both statements are correct.
Alvin
>
> -Saravana
>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Alvin
>>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/dsa/realtek-smi-core.c | 7 +++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/realtek-smi-core.c b/drivers/net/dsa/realtek-smi-core.c
>>> index 8e49d4f85d48..f79c174f4954 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/realtek-smi-core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/realtek-smi-core.c
>>> @@ -394,6 +394,13 @@ static int realtek_smi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> var = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
>>> np = dev->of_node;
>>>
>>> + /* This driver assumes the child PHYs would be probed successfully
>>> + * before this functions returns. That's not a valid assumption, but
>>> + * let fw_devlink know so that this driver continues to function with
>>> + * fw_devlink=on.
>>> + */
>>> + np->fwnode.flags |= FWNODE_FLAG_BROKEN_PARENT;
>>> +
>>> smi = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*smi) + var->chip_data_sz, GFP_KERNEL);
>>> if (!smi)
>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists