netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 5/5] net: dsa: always use phylink for CPU and DSA ports

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220708174030.700a87f5@thinkpad>
Date:   Fri, 8 Jul 2022 17:40:30 +0200
From:   Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Alvin __ipraga <alsi@...g-olufsen.dk>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        George McCollister <george.mccollister@...il.com>,
        Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
        Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 5/5] net: dsa: always use phylink for CPU
 and DSA ports

On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 16:25:03 +0100
"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 10:37:53PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > +static int dsa_port_fixup_broken_dt(struct dsa_port *dp)  
> 
> As I mentioned, I doubt that Andrew considers this "broken DT" as he's
> been promoting this as a standard DSA feature.
> 
> > +{
> > +	struct property_entry fixed_link_props[] = {
> > +		PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("full-duplex"),
> > +		PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("speed", 1000), /* TODO determine actual speed */
> > +		{},
> > +	};
> > +	struct property_entry port_props[3] = {};
> > +	struct fwnode_handle *fixed_link_fwnode;
> > +	struct fwnode_handle *new_port_fwnode;
> > +	struct device_node *dn = dp->dn;
> > +	phy_interface_t mode;
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	if (of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy-handle", 0) ||
> > +	    of_phy_is_fixed_link(dn))
> > +		/* Nothing broken, nothing to fix.
> > +		 * TODO: As discussed with Russell, maybe phylink could provide
> > +		 * a more comprehensive helper to determine what constitutes a
> > +		 * valid fwnode binding than this guerilla kludge.
> > +		 */
> > +		return 0;  
> 
> I think this is sufficient. Yes, phylink accepts "phy" and "phy-device"
> because it has to for compatibility with other drivers, but the binding
> document for DSA quite clearly states that "phy-handle" is what DSA
> accepts, so DT in the kernel will be validated against the yaml file
> and enforce correctness here.
> 
> We do need to check for "sfp" being present as well.
> 
> > +
> > +	err = of_get_phy_mode(dn, &mode);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		/* TODO this may be missing too, ask the driver for the
> > +		 * max-speed interface mode for this port
> > +		 */
> > +		mode = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA;  
> 
> I think it would be easier to omit the phy-mode property in the swnode
> if it isn't present in DT, because then we can handle that in
> dsa_port_phylink_create() as I've done in my patch series via the
> ds->ops->phylink_get_caps() method.
> 
> > +
> > +	port_props[0] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("reg", dp->index);  
> 
> You said in one of your other replies that this node we're constructing
> is only for phylink, do we need the "reg" property? phylink doesn't care
> about it.

We don't. Vladimir wrote: "We don't even need the "reg" u32 property, I
just added that for no reason (I wasn't completely sure what the API
offers, then I didn't remove it)."

Marek