Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 5/5] net: dsa: always use phylink for CPU and DSA ports

["Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 06:43:03PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 12:00:54PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > More importantly, we need your input on Ocelot, which you are listed as
> > a maintainer for, and Ocelot is the only DSA driver that does stuff
> > differently (due to the rate adapting PCS). It doesn't set
> > mac_capabilities, and therefore phylink_set_max_fixed_link() will not
> > work here.
> > 
> > Has Ocelot ever made use of this DSA feature where, when nothing is
> > specified for a CPU or DSA port, we use an effective fixed-link setup
> > with an interface mode that gives the highest speed? Or does this not
> > apply to this DSA driver?
> > 
> > Thanks.
> 
> I'm fine with both the ocelot and sja1105 drivers.
> 
> The ocelot driver has 3 users:
> 
> - felix_vsc9959 (arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi) on NXP
>   LS1028A, where the CPU ports have and have always had a fixed-link
>   node in the SoC dtsi. LS1028A based boards should include the SoC
>   dtsi. If other board DT writers don't do that or if they delete the
>   fixed-link node from the CPU ports, that's not my problem and I don't
>   really want to help them.
> 
> - seville_vsc9953 (arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1040si-post.dtsi) on NXP
>   T1040. Same thing, embedded switch, not my fault if the fixed-link
>   disappears from the SoC dtsi.

Great, so I'll mark ocelot is safe.

> - Colin Foster's SPI-controlled VSC7512 (still downstream). He has an
>   Ethernet cable connecting the CPU port to a Beaglebone Black, so he
>   has a phy-handle on the CPU port, so definitely not nothing. I believe
>   his work hasn't made it to production in any case, so enforcing
>   validation now shouldn't bother him too much if at all.

Ok, thanks.

> As for sja1105, there is DT validation that checks for the presence of
> all required properties in sja1105_parse_ports_node().

Looking at those, it requires all of:

- a phy mode to be specified (as determined by of_get_phy_mode())
- a phy-handle or of_phy_is_fixed_link() to return true

otherwise it errors out.

> There is some DT validation in felix_parse_ports_node() too, but it
> doesn't check that all specifiers that phylink might use are there.

Phylink (correction, fwnode_get_phy_node() which is not part of phylink
anymore) will look for phy-handle, phy, or phy-device. This is I don't
see that there's any incompatibility between what the driver is doing
and what phylink does.

If there's a fixed-link property, then sja1105_parse_ports_node() is
happy, and so will phylink. If there's a phy-handle, the same is true.
If there's a "phy" or "phy-device" then sja1105_parse_ports_node()
errors out. That's completely fine.

"phy" and "phy-device" are the backwards compatibility for DT - I
believe one of them is the ePAPR specified property that we in Linux
have decided to only fall back on if there's not our more modern
"phy-handle" property.

It seems We have a lot of users of "phy" in DT today, so we can't drop
that from generic code such as phylink, but I haven't found any users
of "phy-device".

> I'd really like to add some validation before I gain any involuntary
> users, but all open-coded constructs I can come up with are clumsy.
> What would you suggest, if I explicitly don't want to rely on
> context-specific phylink interpretation of empty OF nodes, and rather
> error out?

So I also don't see a problem - sja1105 rejects DTs that fail to
describe a port using at least one of a phy-handle, a fixed-link, or
a managed in-band link, and I don't think it needs to do further
validation, certainly not for the phy describing properties that
the kernel has chosen to deprecate for new implementations.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!