[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6b738510-bda4-1517-20aa-135566bb98be@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 10:04:31 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Uwe Kleine-K├Ânig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Ioana Ciornei <ciorneiioana@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com>,
Andre Edich <andre.edich@...rochip.com>, Antoine Tenart
<atenart@...nel.org>, Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
Divya Koppera <Divya.Koppera@...rochip.com>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>, Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
Kavya Sree Kotagiri <kavyasree.kotagiri@...rochip.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
Mathias Kresin <dev@...sin.me>, Maxim Kochetkov <fido_max@...ox.ru>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>, Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
Nisar Sayed <Nisar.Sayed@...rochip.com>,
Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
Philippe Schenker <philippe.schenker@...adex.com>,
Willy Liu <willy.liu@...ltek.com>, Yuiko Oshino <yuiko.oshino@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: Don't disable irqs on shutdown if WoL is
enabled
On 8/9/2023 9:21 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> Thinking about this, I wonder whether we could solve your issue by
>> disabling interrupts when the PHY is probed, rather than disabling
>> them on shutdown - something like this? (not build tested)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>> index 3e9909b30938..4d1a37487923 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>> @@ -3216,6 +3216,8 @@ static int phy_probe(struct device *dev)
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> + phy_disable_interrupts(phydev);
>> +
>> /* Start out supporting everything. Eventually,
>> * a controller will attach, and may modify one
>> * or both of these values
>
> At some point, the interrupt is going to be enabled again. And then
> the WoL interrupt will fire. I think some PHY drivers actually need to
> see that WoL interrupt. e.g. the marvell driver has this comment:
>
> static int m88e1318_set_wol(struct phy_device *phydev,
> struct ethtool_wolinfo *wol)
> {
> ....
> /* If WOL event happened once, the LED[2] interrupt pin
> * will not be cleared unless we reading the interrupt status
> * register. If interrupts are in use, the normal interrupt
> * handling will clear the WOL event. Clear the WOL event
> * before enabling it if !phy_interrupt_is_valid()
> */
>
> So it seems like just probing the marvell PHY is not enough to clear
> the WoL interrupt.
>
> Can we be sure that the other PHY has reached a state it can handle
> and clear an interrupt when we come to enable the interrupt? I think
> not, especially in cases like NFS root, where the interface will be
> put into use as soon as it exists, maybe before the other interface
> has probed.
Does it really make sense to have the PHY be interrupt driven for this
specific board configuration if this causes so much hassle?
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists