[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 17:15:45 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
Srini Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: stmmac: allow sharing MDIO lines
> I'll make the water muddier (hopefully clearer?). I have access to the
> board schematic (not SIP/SOM stuff though), but that should help here.
>
> MAC0 owns its own MDIO bus (we'll call it MDIO0). It is pinmuxed to
> gpio8/gpio9 for mdc/mdio. MAC1 owns its own bus (MDIO1) which is
> pinmuxed to gpio21/22.
>
> On MDIO0 there are two SGMII ethernet phys. One is connected to MAC0,
> one is connected to MAC1.
>
> MDIO1 is not connected to anything on the board. So there is only one
> MDIO master, MAC0 on MDIO0, and it manages the ethernet phy for both
> MAC0/MAC1.
>
> Does that make sense? I don't think from a hardware design standpoint
> this is violating anything, it isn't a multimaster setup on MDIO.
Thanks for taking a detailed look at the schematics. This is how i
would expect it to be.
> > > > Good point, but it's worse than that: when MAC0 is unbound, it will
> > > > unregister the MDIO bus and destroy all PHY devices. These are not
> > > > refcounted so they will literally go from under MAC1. Not sure how
> > > > this can be dealt with?
> > >
> > > unbinding is not a normal operation. So i would just live with it, and
> > > if root decides to shoot herself in the foot, that is her choice.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree. Unbinding is very much a normal operation.
What do you use it for?
I don't think i've ever manually done it. Maybe as part of a script to
unbind the FTDI driver from an FTDI device in order to use user space
tools to program the EEPROM? But that is about it.
I actually expect many unbind operations are broken because it is very
rarely used.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists