Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: net: dsa: document internal MDIO bus

Vladimir Oltean
2023-09-13T07:42:37Z

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 08:52:37AM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> On 12.09.2023 22:34, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 10:23:51PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> > > The phylink bindings for user ports I ended up making by looking up the
> > > existing devicetrees are different than the phylink bindings for the shared
> > > (CPU and DSA) ports currently enforced on all switches.
> > >
> > > My phylink bindings for user ports:
> > >
> > > allOf:
> > > - anyOf:
> > > - required: [ fixed-link ]
> > > - required: [ phy-handle ]
> > > - required: [ managed ]
> > >
> > > - if:
> > > required: [ fixed-link ]
> > > then:
> > > not:
> > > required: [ managed ]
> >
> > Right, it should have been anyOf and not oneOf.. my mistake. It is a bug
> > which should be fixed. It's the same phylink that gets used in both cases,
> > user ports and shared ports :)
>
> One more thing, I don't recall phy-mode being required to be defined for
> user ports as it will default to GMII. I don't believe this is the same
> case for shared ports so phy-mode is required only for them?

phy-mode is not strictly required, but I think there is a strong
preference to set it. IIRC, when looking at the DSA device trees, there
was no case where phy-mode would be absent on CPU/DSA ports if the other
link properties were also present, so we required it too. There were no
complaints in 1 year since dsa_shared_port_validate_of() is there. The
requirement can be relaxed to just a warning and no error in the kernel,
and the removal of "required" in the schema, if it helps making it
common with user ports.

I think that the fallback to PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII applies only if
there is a phy_device (phy-handle). But otherwise, I don't remember if
the PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA passed to phylink_create() will persist at
runtime, or cause an error somewhere.

> > > The phylink bindings for shared ports enforced on all switches on
> > > dsa-port.yaml:
> > >
> > > allOf:
> > > - required:
> > > - phy-mode
> > > - oneOf:
> > > - required:
> > > - fixed-link
> > > - required:
> > > - phy-handle
> > > - required:
> > > - managed
> > >
> > > Here's what I understand:
> > >
> > > - For switches in dsa_switches_apply_workarounds[]
> > > - Enforce the latter for shared ports.
> > > - Enforce the former for user ports.
> > >
> > > - For switches not in dsa_switches_apply_workarounds[]
> > > - Enforce the former for all ports.
> >
> > No, no. We enforce the dt-schema regardless of switch presence in
> > dsa_switches_apply_workarounds[], to encourage users to fix device trees
> > (those who run schema validation). The kernel workaround consists in
> > doing something (skipping phylink) for the device trees where the schema
> > warns on shared ports. But there should be a single sub-schema for
> > validating phylink bindings, whatever port kind it is.
>
> Hmm, like writing phylink.yaml and then referring to it under the port
> pattern node? This could prevent a lot of repetition.
>
> Arınç

Yes, that would sound good.