Message-ID: <ZW8mF5TuAEiW5FOU@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 13:31:03 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
	Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
	Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
	Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
	Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 06/16] net: pcs: xpcs: Avoid creating dummy XPCS
 MDIO device

On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 02:31:41PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 10:49:47AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 01:35:27PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > If the DW XPCS MDIO devices are either left unmasked for being auto-probed
> > > or explicitly registered in the MDIO subsystem by means of the
> > > mdiobus_register_board_info() method there is no point in creating the
> > > dummy MDIO device instance in order to get the DW XPCS handler since the
> > > MDIO core subsystem will create the device during the MDIO bus
> > > registration procedure.
> > 
> 
> > Please reword this overly long sentence.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > 
> > If they're left unmasked, what prevents them being created as PHY
> > devices?
> 
> Not sure I fully get what you meant. If they are left unmasked the
> MDIO-device descriptor will be created by the MDIO subsystem anyway.
> What the point in creating another one?

The MDIO bus scan looks for devices on the MDIO bus by probing each
address. If it finds a response, it creates a PHY device (struct
phy_device), and stores a pointer to the mdiodev embedded in this
structure in the array.

This device then gets registered as a PHY device, and becomes available
for use by phylib and PHY drivers.

This is something that needs to be avoided, but I don't see anything in
your series that achieves that.

> > No, this makes no sense now. This function is called
> > xpcs_create_mdiodev() - note the "create_mdiodev" part. If it's getting
> > the mdiodev from what is already there then it isn't creating it, so
> > it's no longer doing what it says in its function name. If you want to
> > add this functionality, create a new function to do it.
> 
> AFAICS the method semantics is a bit different. It's responsibility is to
> create the DW XPCS descriptor. MDIO-device is utilized internally by
> the DW XPCS driver. The function callers don't access the created MDIO
> device directly (at least since some recent commit). So AFAIU "create"
> means creating the XPCS descriptor irrespective from the internal
> communication layer. So IMO the suffix is a bit misleading. I'll
> change it in one of the next commit anyway. Should I just merge that
> patch back in this one?

This function was created (by me) to also create the mdiodev. The
function for use with a pre-existing mdiodev was xpcs_create().
But what do I know, I was only the author of this function, and of
course you're correct.

I don't like this patch anyway. Moving the mdio_device_get() etc out
of xpcs_create() is wrong. Even if you get a mdiodev from some other
place, then having xpcs_create() take a reference on it is still the
correct thing to do. My conclusion is you don't understand refcounting.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists