From: Carlo Szelinsky <github@szelinsky.de>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@bootlin.com>,
Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Carlo Szelinsky <github@szelinsky.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] net: mdio: treat PSE EPROBE_DEFER as non-fatal during PHY registration
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2026 20:57:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260405185730.3937952-1-github@szelinsky.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6185f9d8-dabe-4190-b020-711e3a046e64@lunn.ch>
Hi Andrew,
So I went and looked at whether we can just let EPROBE_DEFER do its
thing here, like you suggested.
From what I can tell, the issue is where it happens.
fwnode_mdiobus_register_phy() gets called during the MDIO bus scan in
__of_mdiobus_parse_phys(), and if any PHY returns -EPROBE_DEFER there,
the whole scan bails out - none of the PHYs on that bus get registered.
So you'd lose all networking on that bus just because one PHY's PSE
controller isn't ready yet.
I also dug into the timing question you raised. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but from what I see the deferred probe timeout is 10s and
regulator_late_cleanup fires at 30s, so the ordering would actually
work out - the consumer would get to claim the regulator before
cleanup kills it. It's more the bus level collateral damage that
seemed like the real problem to me.
That's basically why I ended up treating EPROBE_DEFER as non-fatal
for PSE during PHY registration and doing lazy resolution instead.
The admin_state_synced flag then covers the window between PSE
controller probe and whenever the lazy resolution actually happens.
But I might be looking at this the wrong way - would you rather we
defer the whole bus and accept that trade-off? Or does the lazy
approach seem reasonable for this case? Happy to hear if you have
a different idea entirely.
Cheers,
Carlo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-05 18:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-29 16:10 [PATCH 0/3] net: pse-pd: support module-based PSE controller drivers Carlo Szelinsky
2026-03-29 16:10 ` [PATCH 1/3] net: mdio: treat PSE EPROBE_DEFER as non-fatal during PHY registration Carlo Szelinsky
2026-03-30 11:16 ` Kory Maincent
2026-03-29 16:10 ` [PATCH 2/3] net: pse-pd: prevent regulator cleanup from disabling unclaimed PSE PIs Carlo Szelinsky
2026-03-30 11:17 ` Kory Maincent
2026-03-29 16:10 ` [PATCH 3/3] net: pse-pd: add lazy PSE control resolution for modular drivers Carlo Szelinsky
2026-03-30 11:23 ` Kory Maincent
2026-03-30 11:09 ` [PATCH 0/3] net: pse-pd: support module-based PSE controller drivers Kory Maincent
2026-03-30 13:29 ` [PATCH net-next v2 " Carlo Szelinsky
2026-03-30 13:29 ` [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] net: pse-pd: prevent regulator cleanup from disabling unclaimed PSE PIs Carlo Szelinsky
2026-04-01 2:28 ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-04-06 10:22 ` Oleksij Rempel
2026-03-30 13:29 ` [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: pse-pd: add lazy PSE control resolution for modular drivers Carlo Szelinsky
2026-03-30 13:29 ` [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] net: mdio: treat PSE EPROBE_DEFER as non-fatal during PHY registration Carlo Szelinsky
2026-03-30 14:11 ` Andrew Lunn
2026-04-03 13:31 ` Carlo Szelinsky
2026-04-03 13:38 ` Kory Maincent
2026-04-06 8:42 ` Oleksij Rempel
2026-04-03 15:16 ` Andrew Lunn
2026-04-05 18:57 ` Carlo Szelinsky [this message]
2026-04-06 9:30 ` Oleksij Rempel
2026-04-06 12:22 ` Andrew Lunn
2026-04-06 14:12 ` Oleksij Rempel
2026-04-06 12:42 ` Andrew Lunn
2026-04-06 14:43 ` Carlo Szelinsky
2026-04-06 15:21 ` Andrew Lunn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260405185730.3937952-1-github@szelinsky.de \
--to=github@szelinsky.de \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kory.maincent@bootlin.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=o.rempel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox