[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220727133824.ymedhfhrggietmpj@skbuf>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 16:38:24 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>
Cc: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Alvin Šipraga <alsi@...g-olufsen.dk>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.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>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.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>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.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 net-next 0/6] net: dsa: always use phylink
Hello Marek,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> Dear Vladimir,
>
> am I understanding correctly that your main objection to this series is
> that it may break other drivers?
Yes, but I'm not saying this in a way that tries to make it impossible
to make progress. But rather, I've identified 8 drivers which may lack
complete device tree descriptions:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220723164635.1621911-1-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com/
Simply put, I have no indication that the changes presented here are a
step in the right direction for the remaining 7 drivers. Each and every
single one of them needs to be studied and discussed separately; the
discussion has already started for some.
> Do you think it would be okay if I changed it so that only mv88e6xxx
> driver would ask for phylink for CPU/DSA ports?
It would be a good start, yes. What I could do is I could move my
validation logic from the patch linked above into dsa_port_link_register_of().
Running that logic would let DSA know which properties are missing.
Then, for drivers that don't enforce validation, we could add new
dsa_switch_ops that separately ask the driver what phy-mode to use
(if missing) and what speed/duplex to use (if missing). Drivers can use
whatever heuristic is appropriate for their deployments to respond to this.
If the phy-mode and speed/duplex are finally resolved, DSA can create a
software_node and register with phylink that way. Otherwise, DSA will
continue to do what it does today, i.e. skip phylink registration.
How does that sound?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists