[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2eeb8e24-4122-450b-adf5-8c8a746db518@broadcom.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 16:52:43 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com>,
Broadcom internal kernel review list
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Daniil Tatianin <d-tatianin@...dex-team.ru>, Simon Horman
<horms@...nel.org>, Justin Chen <justin.chen@...adcom.com>,
Ratheesh Kannoth <rkannoth@...vell.com>, Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>,
Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 5/5] net: bcmgenet: Interrogate PHY for
WAKE_FILTER programming
On 10/26/23 16:23, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>
> On 10/26/2023 3:45 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> Determine whether the PHY can support waking up from the user programmed
>> network filter, and if it can utilize it.
>>
>
> Here, you're passing through to phy_ethtool_set_rxnfc, basically
> allowing the lower device to program the wakeup filter if its supported. Ok.
>
> This almost feels like it would belong generally in the higher level
> ethtool code rather than in the driver?
Agreed, as Doug just pointed out to me, there is still an open question
about reconciling the PHY and the MAC RXNFC spaces into a single
ethtool_rxnfc structure.
An ideal goal is to have zero modifications to neither the MAC or the
PHY drivers such that they can both work in their own spaces as if they
were alone, or combined.
I suppose that if we get the number of supported rules from the MAC
first, and then get the supported number of rules from the PHY next, we
could do something like this:
rule index
| 0|
| .| -> MAC rules
|15|
|16| -> PHY rule
and each of the MAC or the PHY {get,set}_rxnfc() operate within a base
rule number which is relative to their own space. So the MAC driver
would continue to care about its (max..first) - base (0) range, and the
PHY would care about (max..first) - base (16).
Though then the issue is discoverability, how do you know which rule
location is backed by which hardware block. We could create an
intermediate and inert rule at index 16 for instance that acts as a
delimiter?
Or we could create yet another RX_CLS_LOC_* value that is "special" and
can denote whether of the MAC or the PHY we should be targeting
whichever is supported, but that does not usually lend itself to being
logically ORed with the existing RX_CLS_LOC_* values. WDYT?
pw-bot: cr
--
Florian
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4221 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists