[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210922213116.7wlvnjfeqjltiecs@skbuf>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 21:31:17 +0000
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
Maxim Kochetkov <fido_max@...ox.ru>,
Bjarni Jonasson <bjarni.jonasson@...rochip.com>,
Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com>,
"UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com" <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
"bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com"
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 net-next 2/6] net: phylink: introduce a generic
method for querying PHY in-band autoneg capability
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:22:19PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 09:14:42PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > +static unsigned int phylink_fixup_inband_aneg(struct phylink *pl,
> > + struct phy_device *phy,
> > + unsigned int mode)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = phy_validate_inband_aneg(phy, pl->link_interface);
> > + if (ret == PHY_INBAND_ANEG_UNKNOWN) {
> > + phylink_dbg(pl,
> > + "PHY driver does not report in-band autoneg capability, assuming %s\n",
> > + phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) ? "true" : "false");
> > +
> > + return mode;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) && !(ret & PHY_INBAND_ANEG_ON)) {
> > + phylink_err(pl,
> > + "Requested in-band autoneg but driver does not support this, disabling it.\n");
>
> If we add support to the BCM84881 driver to work with
> phy_validate_inband_aneg(), then this will always return
> PHY_INBAND_ANEG_OFF and never PHY_INBAND_ANEG_ON. Consequently,
> this will always produce this "error". It is not an error in the
> SFP case, but it is if firmware is misconfigured.
>
> So, this needs better handling - we should not be issuing an error-
> level kernel message for something that is "normal".
Is this better?
phylink_printk(phy_on_sfp(phy) ? KERN_DEBUG : KERN_ERR, pl,
"Requested in-band autoneg but driver does not support this, disabling it.\n");
Powered by blists - more mailing lists