Re: [PATCH net-next v1 7/7] net: usb: lan78xx: Enable EEE support with phylink integration

Oleksij Rempel
2025-01-18T11:23:14Z

On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 10:40:26AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 11:01:22AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 09:04:07AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 08:22:15AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 04:23:52PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > > I'm unsure about many DSA drivers. mt753x:
> > > > >
> > > > > u32 set, mask = LPI_THRESH_MASK | LPI_MODE_EN;
> > > > >
> > > > > if (e->tx_lpi_timer > 0xFFF)
> > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > >
> > > > > set = LPI_THRESH_SET(e->tx_lpi_timer);
> > > > > if (!e->tx_lpi_enabled)
> > > > > /* Force LPI Mode without a delay */
> > > > > set |= LPI_MODE_EN;
> > > > > mt7530_rmw(priv, MT753X_PMEEECR_P(port), mask, set);
> > > > >
> > > > > Why force LPI *without* a delay if tx_lpi_enabled is false? This
> > > > > seems to go against the documented API:
> > > > >
> > > > > * @tx_lpi_enabled: Whether the interface should assert its tx lpi, given
> > > > > * that eee was negotiated.
> > > >
> > > > According to MT7531 manual, I would say, the code is not correct:
> > > > https://repo.librerouter.org/misc/lr2/MT7531_switch_Reference_Manual_for_Development_Board.pdf
> > > >
> > > > The LPI_MODE_EN_Px bit has following meaning:
> > > >
> > > > When there is no packet to be transmitted, and the idle time is greater
> > > > than P2_LPI_THRESHOLD, the TXMAC will automatically enter LPI (Low
> > > > Power Idle) mode and send EEE LPI frame to the link partner.
> > > > 0: LPI mode depends on the P2_LPI_THRESHOLD.
> > > > 1: Let the system enter the LPI mode immediately and send EEE LPI frame
> > > > to the link partner.
> > >
> > > Okay, so LPI_MODE_EN_Px causes it to disregard the LPI timer, and enter
> > > LPI mode immediately. Thus, the code should never set LPI_MODE_EN_Px.
> > >
> > > > This chip seems to not have support for tx_lpi_enabled != eee_enabled
> > > > configuration.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't see your reasoning there - and I think your
> > > interpretation is different from the documentation (which is
> > > the whole point of having a generic implementation in phylib
> > > to avoid these kinds of different interpretation.)
> > >
> > > * @eee_enabled: EEE configured mode (enabled/disabled).
> > > * @tx_lpi_enabled: Whether the interface should assert its tx lpi, given
> > > * that eee was negotiated.
> > >
> > > eee on|off
> > > Enables/disables the device support of EEE.
> > >
> > > tx-lpi on|off
> > > Determines whether the device should assert its Tx LPI.
> > >
> > > The way phylib interprets eee_enabled is whether EEE is advertised
> > > to the remote device or not. If EEE is not advertised, then EEE is
> > > not negotiated, and thus EEE will not become active. If EEE is not
> > > active, then LPI must not be asserted. tx_lpi_enabled defines whether,
> > > given that EEE has been negotiated, whether LPI should be signalled
> > > after the LPI timer has expired.
> > >
> > > phylib deals with all this logic, and its all encoded into the
> > > phydev->enable_tx_lpi flag to give consistency of implementation.
> > >
> > > Thus, phydev->enable_tx_lpi is only true when eee_enabled && eee
> > > negotiated at the specified speed && tx_lpi_enabled. In that state,
> > > LPI is expected to be signalled after the LPI timer has expired.
> >
> > I mean, the configuration where EEE can be enabled and in active state,
> > but TX LPI is disabled: eee_enabled = true; eee_active = true;
> > enable_tx_lpi = false. UAPI allows this configuration and it seems to
>
> enable_tx_lpi is the result of phylib's management, and not a uAPI
> thing. I think you mean the uAPI tx_lpi_enabled.

yes.

> > work for 100Mbit/s. Atheros documentation call it asymmetric EEE
> > operation - where each link partner enters LPI mode independently. In
> > comparison, the same documentation calls 1000Mbit EEE mode, symmetric
> > operation - where both link partner must enter the LPI mode
> > simulatneously.
>
> I'm not sure you are entirely correct.
>
> FORCE_MODE_EEE100_P2
> FORCE_MODE_EEE1G_P2
>
> These bits seem to control whether the MT753x uses the result of polling
> the PHY or the two force bits below to determine whether "EEE ability"
> is determined.
>
> FORCE_EEE1G_P2
> FORCE_EEE100_P2
>
> These bits determine whether, when their respective FORCE_MODE_EEE*_P2
> bit is set, "EEE ability" is set or not.
>
> "EEE ability" in this case would seem to basically be what we call
> "EEE active" in kernel speak.
>
> So, an implementation that would support our current uAPI fully would
> be:
>
> - Set FORCE_MODE_EEE*_P2 bits (thus making the "EEE ability" be
> under software control rather than the result of the PHY polling
> unit.)
> - Set/clear FORCE_EEE*_P2 bits depending on phydev->enable_tx_lpi
> - Set the timer according to phydev->eee_cfg.tx_lpi_timer
>
> and that will support the user API in the way that its intended to be.

Ack, I see. It make sense.

--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |