From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1359CFA462 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:09:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:CC:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=fLqK+GhGI2GvTP8XVLItGDUPB6k79bfh6wVAO1Pmz6M=; b=YLUVr0/SHbtn/Ri7MVkX6H389T qGAfk04YWt++cblQC86fTM1zBaBBSIhlbRByiZBLzd+sHWpELIG27GAikFvr74P8VwFr10ne3Fv3H ClBePPM8pAEgDhSr9+hxa7MdEY8zSTjUDfpUsCyoMclauYjMKTKXFcC+gZr70FkfoeGLHKYV/flk7 JUHsd/DZZsYEuD1GVd/znI1nmTYO98nY/64Zq8MTWWOzq+X8IKSiDRiIAX/h6mmpYAXqsNqwAICHQ ucc8gXCovHvadCNFApp+O4I5ufkngkioN55xAIuFH2neGHQ4Y3t0M00ISPJip0IU6s48A/5jfuzQE POvP7Qkg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1t3hfj-0000000FlrS-1XXS; Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:09:35 +0000 Received: from esa.microchip.iphmx.com ([68.232.153.233]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1t3gAT-0000000FYSD-3FOP for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 23 Oct 2024 18:33:16 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=microchip.com; i=@microchip.com; q=dns/txt; s=mchp; t=1729708394; x=1761244394; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=jTmoWEA/AvudZiXAP5wmbx3SBQUJFGbhGS0+jYMgA9s=; b=V/pFmo5/JFBfyIevIQOGiFQez91GeuOMJAoc45ibnkCWoHnOSf+fxru1 4jbD25piPruYI4VKHbYvxAjM/Ka3x+kM40aBC6Hsh70jWzQkag/HeDLwi C5TtHIxrs5OrqSzEPCq7Sj5lgmIJn+KRWMTtNBFEpeg8+pGzUn5Rykgu6 a+cCfbe/BixeeNKnGJp0gm3rwXccvseabjd28mlHXro97/XasJi5mkPxI CFDLkrdEDfmRXrkc7HfX4M4LmIYj8Kh90PQkCmWIGAXl/s4HasV9Vlbmg /KrliVE+QkSDeb9dmZyTtZS5y6CyHiSJWofzZCoAnphShbWy6QeeJoLXX w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: JDex8fWsSkymE6te52D0xA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: BgJUY6LtTXG7CdeXOxbaSQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,226,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="33404578" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) Received: from unknown (HELO email.microchip.com) ([170.129.1.10]) by esa3.microchip.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256; 23 Oct 2024 11:33:12 -0700 Received: from chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) by chn-vm-ex02.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Wed, 23 Oct 2024 11:33:06 -0700 Received: from DEN-DL-M70577 (10.10.85.11) by chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.1.2507.35 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 23 Oct 2024 11:33:02 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 18:33:01 +0000 From: Daniel Machon To: Krzysztof Kozlowski CC: "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , , Lars Povlsen , Steen Hegelund , , , , , , Richard Cochran , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 14/15] net: sparx5: add compatible strings for lan969x and verify the target Message-ID: <20241023183301.5st3aa23ad6nl5xz@DEN-DL-M70577> References: <20241021-sparx5-lan969x-switch-driver-2-v1-0-c8c49ef21e0f@microchip.com> <20241021-sparx5-lan969x-switch-driver-2-v1-14-c8c49ef21e0f@microchip.com> <20241023110034.jpwoblwrds3ln5nr@DEN-DL-M70577> <24b18f9e-6fbd-48cc-96bd-e634d0af9824@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <24b18f9e-6fbd-48cc-96bd-e634d0af9824@kernel.org> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20241023_113314_177586_433434D2 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 45.93 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > >>> Add compatible strings for the twelve lan969x SKU's (Stock Keeping Unit) > >>> that we support, and verify that the devicetree target is supported by > >>> the chip target. > >>> > >>> Each SKU supports different bandwidths and features (see [1] for > >>> details). We want to be able to run a SKU with a lower bandwidth and/or > >>> feature set, than what is supported by the actual chip. In order to > >>> accomplish this we: > >>> > >>> - add new field sparx5->target_dt that reflects the target from the > >>> devicetree (compatible string). > >>> > >>> - compare the devicetree target with the actual chip target. If the > >>> bandwidth and features provided by the devicetree target is > >>> supported by the chip, we approve - otherwise reject. > >>> > >>> - set the core clock and features based on the devicetree target > >>> > >>> [1] https://www.microchip.com/en-us/product/lan9698 > >>> > >>> Reviewed-by: Steen Hegelund > >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Machon > >>> --- > >>> drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/Makefile | 1 + > >>> .../net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.c | 194 ++++++++++++++++++++- > >>> .../net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.h | 1 + > >>> 3 files changed, 193 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/Makefile b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/Makefile > >>> index 3435ca86dd70..8fe302415563 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/Makefile > >>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/Makefile > >>> @@ -19,3 +19,4 @@ sparx5-switch-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS) += sparx5_vcap_debugfs.o > >>> # Provide include files > >>> ccflags-y += -I$(srctree)/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/vcap > >>> ccflags-y += -I$(srctree)/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/fdma > >>> +ccflags-y += -I$(srctree)/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan969x > >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.c > >>> index 5c986c373b3e..edbe639d98c5 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.c > >>> @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ > >>> #include > >>> #include > >>> > >>> +#include "lan969x.h" /* lan969x_desc */ > >>> + > >>> #include "sparx5_main_regs.h" > >>> #include "sparx5_main.h" > >>> #include "sparx5_port.h" > >>> @@ -227,6 +229,168 @@ bool is_sparx5(struct sparx5 *sparx5) > >>> } > >>> } > >>> > >>> +/* Set the devicetree target based on the compatible string */ > >>> +static int sparx5_set_target_dt(struct sparx5 *sparx5) > >>> +{ > >>> + struct device_node *node = sparx5->pdev->dev.of_node; > >>> + > >>> + if (is_sparx5(sparx5)) > >>> + /* For Sparx5 the devicetree target is always the chip target */ > >>> + sparx5->target_dt = sparx5->target_ct; > >>> + else if (of_device_is_compatible(node, "microchip,lan9691-switch")) > >>> + sparx5->target_dt = SPX5_TARGET_CT_LAN9691VAO; > >>> + else if (of_device_is_compatible(node, "microchip,lan9692-switch")) > >>> + sparx5->target_dt = SPX5_TARGET_CT_LAN9692VAO; > >>> + else if (of_device_is_compatible(node, "microchip,lan9693-switch")) > >>> + sparx5->target_dt = SPX5_TARGET_CT_LAN9693VAO; > >>> + else if (of_device_is_compatible(node, "microchip,lan9694-switch")) > >>> + sparx5->target_dt = SPX5_TARGET_CT_LAN9694; > >>> + else if (of_device_is_compatible(node, "microchip,lan9695-switch")) > >>> + sparx5->target_dt = SPX5_TARGET_CT_LAN9694TSN; > >>> + else if (of_device_is_compatible(node, "microchip,lan9696-switch")) > >>> + sparx5->target_dt = SPX5_TARGET_CT_LAN9696; > >>> + else if (of_device_is_compatible(node, "microchip,lan9697-switch")) > >>> + sparx5->target_dt = SPX5_TARGET_CT_LAN9696TSN; > >>> + else if (of_device_is_compatible(node, "microchip,lan9698-switch")) > >>> + sparx5->target_dt = SPX5_TARGET_CT_LAN9698; > >>> + else if (of_device_is_compatible(node, "microchip,lan9699-switch")) > >>> + sparx5->target_dt = SPX5_TARGET_CT_LAN9698TSN; > >>> + else if (of_device_is_compatible(node, "microchip,lan969a-switch")) > >>> + sparx5->target_dt = SPX5_TARGET_CT_LAN9694RED; > >>> + else if (of_device_is_compatible(node, "microchip,lan969b-switch")) > >>> + sparx5->target_dt = SPX5_TARGET_CT_LAN9696RED; > >>> + else if (of_device_is_compatible(node, "microchip,lan969c-switch")) > >>> + sparx5->target_dt = SPX5_TARGET_CT_LAN9698RED; > >>> + else > >>> + return -EINVAL; > >>> + > >>> + return 0; > >>> +} > >>> + > >>> +/* Compare the devicetree target with the chip target. > >>> + * Make sure the chip target supports the features and bandwidth requested > >>> + * from the devicetree target. > >>> + */ > >>> +static int sparx5_verify_target(struct sparx5 *sparx5) > >>> +{ > >>> + switch (sparx5->target_dt) { > >>> + case SPX5_TARGET_CT_7546: > >>> + case SPX5_TARGET_CT_7549: > >>> + case SPX5_TARGET_CT_7552: > >>> + case SPX5_TARGET_CT_7556: > >>> + case SPX5_TARGET_CT_7558: > >>> + case SPX5_TARGET_CT_7546TSN: > >>> + case SPX5_TARGET_CT_7549TSN: > >>> + case SPX5_TARGET_CT_7552TSN: > >>> + case SPX5_TARGET_CT_7556TSN: > >>> + case SPX5_TARGET_CT_7558TSN: > >>> + return 0; > >> > >> All this is weird. Why would you verify? You were matched, it cannot be > >> mis-matching. > > > > We are verifying that the match (target/compatible string) from the > > device tree is supported by the chip. Maybe I wasn't too clear about the > > intend in v1. > > > > Each target supports different bandwidths and features. If you have a > > lan9698 chip, it must, obviously, be possible to run it as a lan9698 > > target. However, some targets can be run on chip targets other than > > themselves, given that the chip supports the bandwidth and features of > > the provided target. In contrary, trying to run as a target with a > > feature not supported by the chip, or a bandwidth higher than what the > > chip supports, should be rejected. > > But you are not supposed to compare DT with what you auto-detected. > Detect your hardware, test if it is supported and then bail out. > > None of above explains the code. > > > > > Without this logic, the chip id is read and a target is determined. That > > means on a lan9698 chip you will always match the lan9698 target. > > That's not the job of kernel. > > > > > With the new logic, it is possible to run as a different target than > > what is read from the chip id, given that the target you are trying to > > run as, is supported by the chip. > > So just run on different target. > > > > >> > >>> + case SPX5_TARGET_CT_LAN9698RED: > >>> + if (sparx5->target_ct == SPX5_TARGET_CT_LAN9698RED) > >> > >> What is "ct"? sorry, all this code is a big no. > > > > In this case we were matched as a SPX5_TARGET_CT_LAN9698RED target. We > > are verifying that the chip target (target_ct, which is read from the > > chip) supports the target we were matched as. > > > >> Krzysztof > >> > > > > This is a feature that we would like, as it gives the flexibility of > > running different targets on the same chip. Now if this is something > > that cannot be accepted, I will have to ditch this part. > > I have no clue what the "target" is but so far it looks like you try to > validate DT against detected device. That's not how it should work. I will get rid of the verification in v2. Thanks. /Daniel > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >