Message-ID: <655bc8d6.050a0220.d22f2.315f@mx.google.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 19:09:10 +0100
From: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: "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>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
	Broadcom internal kernel review list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
	Qingfang Deng <dqfext@...il.com>,
	SkyLake Huang <SkyLake.Huang@...iatek.com>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
	David Epping <david.epping@...singlinkelectronics.com>,
	Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
	"Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
	Harini Katakam <harini.katakam@....com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
	Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [net-next RFC PATCH 03/14] dt-bindings: net: document ethernet
 PHY package nodes

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 09:44:58PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 02:50:30PM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > Document ethernet PHY package nodes used to describe PHY shipped in
> > bundle of 4-5 PHY. These particular PHY require specific PHY in the
> > package for global onfiguration of the PHY package.
> > 
> > Example are PHY package that have some regs only in one PHY of the
> > package and will affect every other PHY in the package, for example
> > related to PHY interface mode calibration or global PHY mode selection.
> 
> I think you are being overly narrow here. The 'global' registers could
> be spread over multiple addresses. Particularly for a C22 PHY. I
> suppose they could even be in a N+1 address space, where there is no
> PHY at all.
> 
> Where the global registers are is specific to a PHY package
> vendor/model. The PHY driver should know this. All the PHY driver
> needs to know is some sort of base offset. PHY0 in this package is
> using address X. It can then use relative addressing from this base to
> access the global registers for this package.

Yes that would also work but adds extra fragile code in PHY driver.
An idea might be define PHY package node with a reg that is the base
addr... and if we really want every PHY in the PHY package node is an
offset of the base addr.

>  
> > It's also possible to specify the property phy-mode to specify that the
> > PHY package sets a global PHY interface mode and every PHY of the
> > package requires to have the same PHY interface mode.
> 
> I don't think it is what simple. See the QCA8084 for example. 3 of the
> 4 PHYs must use QXGMII. The fourth PHY can also use QXGMII but it can
> be multiplexed to a different PMA and use 1000BaseX, SGMII or
> 2500BaseX.

Yes that is totally a problem but I think it can only be handled with
some validation in the PHY driver... I assume probe_once would validate
the modes?

> 
> I do think we need somewhere to put package properties. But i don't
> think phy-mode is such a property. At the moment, i don't have a good
> example of a package property.
> 

And this is the main problem with this thing... Find a good way to
define them that everyone is OK with.

Another idea might be introduce to each PHY a property that point to the
PHY package node (phandle) with all the info... But where to place
that??? Outside mdio node? That would be confusing... This is why I like
this subnode way.

I know it deviates a bit from the normal way of defining small node in
the mdio node one for each PHY.

> > +examples:
> > +  - |
> > +    ethernet {
> > +        #address-cells = <1>;
> > +        #size-cells = <0>;
> > +
> > +        ethernet-phy-package {
> > +            compatible = "ethernet-phy-package";
> > +            #address-cells = <1>;
> > +            #size-cells = <0>;
> 
> You have the PHYs within the Ethernet node. This is allowed by DT, for
> historic reasons. However, i don't remember the last time a patch was
> submitted that actually used this method. Now a days, PHYs are on an
> MDIO bus, and they are children of that bus in the DT representation.
> However you represent the package needs to work with MDIO busses.
> 

Using the ethernet node was an oversight and actually this is defined as
a subnode in the mdio node.

A real DT that use this is (ipq807x):

&mdio {
	status = "okay";
	pinctrl-0 = <&mdio_pins>;
	pinctrl-names = "default";
	reset-gpios = <&tlmm 37 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;

	ethernet-phy-package {
		compatible = "ethernet-phy-package";
		phy-mode = "psgmii";

		global-phys = <&qca8075_4>, <&qca8075_psgmii>;
		global-phy-names = "combo", "analog_psgmii";

		qca8075_0: ethernet-phy@0 {
			compatible = "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22";
			reg = <0>;
		};

		qca8075_1: ethernet-phy@1 {
			compatible = "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22";
			reg = <1>;
		};

		qca8075_2: ethernet-phy@2 {
			compatible = "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22";
			reg = <2>;
		};

		qca8075_3: ethernet-phy@3 {
			compatible = "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22";
			reg = <3>;
		};

		qca8075_4: ethernet-phy@4 {
			compatible = "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22";
			reg = <4>;
		};

		qca8075_psgmii: ethernet-phy@5 {
			compatible = "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22";
			reg = <5>;
		};
	};

	qca8081: ethernet-phy@28 {
		compatible = "ethernet-phy-id004d.d101";
		reg = <28>;
		reset-gpios = <&tlmm 31 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
	};

	aqr113c: ethernet-phy@8 {
		compatible = "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c45";
		reg = <8>;
		reset-gpios = <&tlmm 63 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
	};
};

-- 
	Ansuel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists