[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+99X3vRjLIoVOmm@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 13:13:03 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com>,
Broadcom internal kernel review list
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>,
Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@....com>,
Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Byungho An <bh74.an@...sung.com>,
Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 03/18] net: marvell: mvneta: Simplify EEE
configuration
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:59:39AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 04:42:15AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > @@ -4221,10 +4218,8 @@ static void mvneta_mac_link_up(struct phylink_config *config,
> >
> > mvneta_port_up(pp);
> >
> > - if (phy && pp->eee_enabled) {
> > - pp->eee_active = phy_init_eee(phy, false) >= 0;
> > - mvneta_set_eee(pp, pp->eee_active && pp->tx_lpi_enabled);
> > - }
> > + if (phy)
> > + mvneta_set_eee(pp, phy->eee_active && pp->tx_lpi_enabled);
>
> Thinking about this a bit more, I'm not convinced this is properly safe.
> What protects phy->eee_active from changing here? The phydev mutex won't
> be held at this point.
>
> As I mentioned in my reply to the cover letter about passing a flag to
> mac_link_up() for EEE status, this would mean phylink could save the
> EEE active status just like it does with the other phydev parameters
> in phylink_phy_change() (which is called under the phydev mutex).
I suppose another option would be to add a new method to
phylink_mac_ops:
int (*mac_set_eee)(struct phylink_config *config, bool eee,
u32 tx_lpi_timer);
and phylink calls this just before mac_link_up() or after
phylink_ethtool_set_eee(). The eee flag would be the effective result
of phydev->eee_active && tx_lpi_enabled, possibly also && tx_lpi_timer
!= 0, since a zero tx_lpi_timer is rather meaningless, unless we
explicitly have phylink_ethtool_set_eee() reject it is invalid.
All that mac_set_eee() implementations should then need to do is to
program the LPI timer in the MAC hardware, and enable or disable it
according to the "eee" flag.
The down-side to another mac_ops method is having to add a wrapper in
net/dsa/port.c for it.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists