Re: [PATCH net-next 10/16] net: pcs: xpcs: Add generic DW XPCS MDIO-device support

Serge Semin
2023-12-14T11:54:10Z

Hi Vladimir,

Sorry for the delayed response. Too much work at this time of the year
(ah, Decembers)..(

On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 06:33:43PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 05:11:20PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > My idea was to reuse the mdio_device which has already been created
> > either by means of the MDIO-bus OF-subnode or by means of the MDIO-bus
> > board_info infrastructure (can be utilized in the SJA1105 or Wangxun
> > Tx GBE). The xpcs_create() method then either probes the device on the MDIO
> > bus and gets ID from there, or just uses the custom IDs based on the
> > OF compatible match table or on the platform_data. If no MDIO-device
> > was created my patchset is supposed to preserve the previous
> > semantics: create MDIO-device, probe the device on the MDIO-bus, get
> > device IDs from there. See the next patch for more details:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231205103559.9605-11-fancer.lancer@gmail.com/
> >
> > > That was attempted a while ago by
> > > Sean Anderson with the Lynx PCS. Are you aware of the fact that even in
> > > the good case in which binding the driver actually works, the user can
> > > then come along and unbind it from the PCS device, and phylink isn't
> > > prepared to handle that, so it will crash the kernel upon the next
> > > phylink_pcs call?
> >
> > To be honest I didn't consider the driver bind/unbind option. But my
> > case a bit different. DW XPCS MDIO-device is supposed to be created
> > automatically by means of the DW XPCS MI driver from the DT-nodes
> > hierarchy like this:
> > mdio@1f05d000 {
> > compatible = "snps,dw-xpcs-mi";
> > reg = <0 0x1f05d000 0 0x1000>;
> >
> > xgmac_pcs: ethernet-pcs@0 {
> > compatible = "snps,dw-xpcs";
> > reg = <0>;
> > };
> > };
> > The platform-device is created for the mdio@1f05d000 node for which
> > the DW XPCS MI driver is loaded, which calls the
> > devm_of_mdiobus_register() in the probe() method which registers the
> > MDIO-bus and then creates the MDIO-device from the ethernet-pcs@0
> > node. The DW XPCS MDIO-device driver is attached to that MDIO-device
> > then. In such model the PCS can be supplied to the DW *MAC via the
> > "pcs-handle = &xgmac_pcs" property.
> >
> > Regarding the current semantics it's preserved in the framework of the
> > xpcs_create_byaddr() method (former xpcs_create_mdiodev()) by means of
> > the next code snippet:
> > if (mdiobus_is_registered_device(bus, addr)) {
> > mdiodev = bus->mdio_map[addr];
> > mdio_device_get(mdiodev);
> > } else {
> > mdiodev = mdio_device_create(bus, addr);
> > if (IS_ERR(mdiodev))
> > return ERR_CAST(mdiodev);
> > }
> > Device can be automatically created if before registering the MDIO-bus
> > the xpcs_create_byaddr() caller registered the MDIO-device board info
> > by means of the mdiobus_register_board_info() method. In addition to
> > that it's now possible to supply some custom data (custom device IDs
> > in my implementation) to the XPCS driver by means of the
> > mdio_board_info.platform_data field. See the next patch for
> > reference:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231205103559.9605-14-fancer.lancer@gmail.com
> >
> > So what the difference with the Lynx PCS is that in my case the
> > MDIO-device is created automatically as a result of the DW XPCS MI
> > MDIO-bus registration. Additionally I implemented the MDIO-device
> > creation based on the MDIO-board-info, thus there won't be need in the
> > calling mdio_device_create() on each xpcs_create_mdiodev() invocation.
> > The later part isn't that important in the framework of this
> > conversation, but just so you be aware.
>

> It's not really different, though. You can connect to the Lynx PCS both
> ways, see dpaa2_pcs_create() which also searches for a pcs-handle before
> calling lynx_pcs_create_fwnode().

Ah, right. Lynx PCS also implements the fwnode-based PCS descriptor
creation.

> What's subtly different is that we
> don't (yet) have "fsl,lynx-pcs" compatible strings in the device tree.
> So the MDIO controller will register the PCS devices as struct phy_device
> (which still have an underlying struct mdio_device). The PCS layer
> connects to the underlying struct mdio_device, and the phy_device on top
> remains unconnected to any phylib/phylink MAC driver. That is confusing,
> I should really get to adding those compatible strings to suppress the
> phy_device creation.

It hasn't been confirmed yet here
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/na6krkoco7pmsl62dfuj2xlrvpsnod74ptpfyy6gv7dzwmowga@mzsiknjian2i/
but AFAICS it is wrong to have a PCS device registered as PHY by any
means: unmasking address in mii_bus->phy_mask or having the
of_mdiobus_child_is_phy() returned true for a DT-node. So right, a
specific compatible should be added to the PCS DT-nodes.

>
> > Regarding the driver bind/unbind. As I said I didn't actually consider
> > that option. On the other hand my DW XPCS MDIO-device driver doesn't
> > do actual probe() or remove(). The only implemented thing is the
> > of_device_id table, which is used to assign PCS and PMA IDs if
> > required based on the DT compatible property. So I can easily drop any
> > MDIO device-driver part and parse the of_device_id table right in the
> > xpcs_create_bynode(). From that perspective my implementation won't
> > differ much from the Lynx PCS design. The only difference will be is
> > the way the MDIO-bus is created and registered. In case of Lynx PCS
> > the bus is created by the MAC-driver itself.
>

> Nope, not true. Follow the pcs-handle in arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-lx2160a.dtsi.

Ah, right, I missed that case. I was referring to the cases when the
Lynx PCS MDIO node is defined as a sub-node of the MAC node.

>
> > In my case DW XPCS MI is currently created in the framework of the
> > separate platform driver. Do you think it would be better to follow
> > the Lynx design pattern in order to get rid from the possibility of
> > the DW XPCS MI driver being unbound behind the STMMAC+XPCS couple
> > back?
>
> I think you actually pointed out a flaw in the Lynx PCS design too.
> Actually, it is a larger flaw in the kernel. You can also unbind the
> MDIO bus which holds the phy_device, and phylib (and therefore also
> phylink) won't expect that either, so it will crash.
>
> > In this case the Dw MAC DT-node hierarchy would look like this:
> >
> > xgmac: ethernet@1f054000 {
> > compatible = "snps,dwxgmac";
> > reg = <0 0x1f054000 0 0x4000>;
> > reg-names = "stmmaceth";
> > ranges;
> >
> > ...
> >
> > pcs-handle = &xgmac_pcs;
> >
> > // DW XPCS MI to access the DW XPCS attached to the device
> > mdio@1f05d000 {
> > compatible = "snps,dwmac-mi";
> > reg = <0 0x1f05d000 0 0x1000>;
> >
> > xgmac_pcs: ethernet-pcs@0 {
> > compatible = "snps,dw-xpcs";
> > reg = <0>;
> > };
> > };
> >
> > // Normal MDIO-bus to access external PHYs (it's also called
> > // as SMA - Station Management Agent - by Synopsys)
> > mdio {
> > compatible = "snps,dwmac-mdio";
> > #address-cells = <1>;
> > #size-cells = <0>;
> > };
> > };
> >
> > I actually thought to use that hardware description pattern instead,
> > but after some meditation around that I decided that having the DW
> > XPCS device defined separately from the DW MAC node seemed better at
> > least from the code separation point of view. Now I think that it
> > wasn't the best decision. DW XPCS is always attached to the DW XGMAC
> > controller. So it would be more correct having it defined as a
> > sub-node. It would also helped to avoid the platform device driver
> > bind/unbind problem.
> >
> > What do you think? Should I re-design my patchset to be supporting the
> > design above? (After having conversion with you I am more inclined to
> > do that now than to stick with the currently implemented solution.)
>
> I think that the placement of the "mdio" node as lateral vs subordinate
> to the "ethernet" node would have fixed the issue by mistake. We should
> be looking at it as a structural problem of the kernel instead. Don't
> let it influence what you believe should be the correct design.

Ok. Thanks for clarification. I won't move the PCS device DT-node to
being subordinate of the MAC DT-node then. Although after some more
digging into the problem I figured out that the solution still needs
to be re-designed a bit. Currently I have the DW XPCS device represented as
the nodes hierarchy:
mdio@1f05d000 {
compatible = "snps,dwmac-mi";
reg = <0 0x1f05d000 0 0x1000>;

xgmac_pcs: ethernet-pcs@0 {
compatible = "snps,dw-xpcs";
reg = <0>;
};
};
When I introduced such representation I assumed that it was possible
to have more than one DW XPCS devices accessible over the same MCI/APB
interface with for instance some static offset. But it turned out I
was wrong again. DW XPCS HW databook explicitly states that
port_id_i[4:0] input signal is specific to the MDIO interface only.
That signal is the MDIO-bus address of the device and it doesn't exist
for the DW XPCS devices mapped to the system IO-memory via the MCI/APB
buses. So there can't be more than one XPCS device accessible over the
same MCI/APB port and the correct way to represent the DW XPCS device
is just:
xgmac_pcs: ethernet-pcs@0 {
compatible = "snps,dw-xpcs";
reg = <0 0x1f05d000 0 0x1000>;
};
with no superior MI node. I'll re-design my patchset to support the
device representation above then: just create a hidden MDIO-bus in the
DW XPCS driver probe method and directly register the XPCS-device on
it. The patch for the MDIO-bus subsystem will be gone after that.

>
> > > The pcs-rzn1-miic.c driver puts a device_link to the MAC to at least
> > > tear down the whole thing when the PCS is unbound, which is saner than
> > > crashing the kernel. I don't see the equivalent protection mechanism here?
> >
> > You are right. I don't have any equivalent protection here. Thanks for
> > suggesting a solution.
>
> I think that a device link between the "ethernet" device and the "mdio"
> device (controller, parent of the PHY or PCS), if the Ethernet is not a
> parent of the MDIO controller, could also solve that. But it would also
> require ACK from PHY maintainers, who may have grander plans to address
> this snag.

Ok. I'll add it in v2. Let's see what the maintainers think about
that.

Thanks for all your comments in my patchset regard. They are really
helpful.

-Serge(y)

>
> > > Can't the xpcs continue to live without a bound driver? Having a
> > > compatible string in the OF description is perfectly fine though,
> > > and should absolutely not preclude that.
> >
> > As I explained above Dw XPCS device can live without a bound driver
> > because the DW XPCS MDIO-driver doesn't do much but merely gets to be
> > bound based on the of_device_id table. In my case the problem is in
> > the DW XPCS MI driver which indeed can be detached. Please see my
> > long-read text above.
>
> Yeah, common design, common problem.