Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

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

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 09:22:16PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 07:21:45PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> > And then came 6373X switch, which didn't support clause 37 inband AN in
> > 2500base-x mode (the AN reigster returned 0xffff or something when
> > 2500base-x CMODE was set). Maybe 6373X finally supports clause 73 AN
> > (I don't know, but I don't think so) and that is the reason they now
> > forbid clause 37 AN in HW in 2500base-x.
> > 
> > But the problem is that by this time there is software out there then
> > expects 2500base-x to have clause 37 AN enabled. Indeed a passive SFP
> > cable did not work between MOX' SFP port and CN9130-CRB's SFP port
> > when used with Peridot (6190), if C37 AN was disabled on 6393x and left
> > enabled on Peridot.
> > 
> > I managed to work out how to enable C37 AN on 6393x:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=163000dbc772c1eae9bdfe7c8fe30155db1efd74
> > 
> > So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> > the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> > presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> > 
> > I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> > mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?
> 
> So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
> answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
> autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
> has nothing to do with that decision. Right?

I think we're getting a little too het up over this.

We have 1000base-X where, when we're not using in-band-status, we don't
use autoneg (some drivers that weren't caught in review annoyingly do
still use autoneg, but they shouldn't). We ignore the ethtool autoneg
bit.

We also have 1000base-X where we're using in-band-status, and we then
respect the ethtool autoneg bit.

So, wouldn't it be logical if 2500base-X were implemented the same way,
and on setups where 2500base-X does not support clause 37 AN, we
clear the ethtool autoneg bit? If we have 2500base-X being used as the
media link, surely this is the right behaviour?

(This has implications for the rate adaption case, since the 2500base-X
link is not the media, and therefore the state of the autoneg bit
shouldn't apply to the 2500base-X link.)

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