From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To: Jonas Jelonek <jelonek.jonas@gmail.com>,
Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>,
Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@bootlin.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Daniel Golle" <daniel@makrotopia.org>,
"Bjørn Mork" <bjorn@mork.no>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/2] net: pse-pd: add Realtek/Broadcom PSE MCU driver
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 09:55:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2ee45ab5-a329-4891-8326-ac8f14b6374a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260630105651.756058-3-jelonek.jonas@gmail.com>
On 6/30/26 12:56 PM, Jonas Jelonek wrote:
> A range of PoE switches use a small microcontroller on the PCB to front
> the actual PSE silicon. The host CPU talks to that MCU over I2C/SMBus or
> UART using a fixed 12-byte request/response protocol with a trailing
> checksum; the PSE chips are managed by the MCU and are not accessed
> directly. The same protocol family is spoken by Realtek and Broadcom PSE
> MCUs, diverging in opcode numbering and a few response layouts, which the
> driver abstracts behind a per-dialect opcode table and parser hooks
> selected by the compatible. The specific PSE chip behind the MCU is
> detected at runtime and only influences per-chip constants (power scaling
> and the per-port cap).
>
> The driver is split into a shared core and two transport modules:
>
> - PSE_REALTEK_MCU: protocol, message framing, dialect machinery, and the
> pse_controller_ops glue.
> - PSE_REALTEK_MCU_I2C / PSE_REALTEK_MCU_UART: transport modules
> registering the MCU on an I2C bus or a serdev port respectively.
>
> The realtek-pse-mcu-* files and PSE_REALTEK_MCU* symbols match the
> realtek,pse-mcu-rtk / realtek,pse-mcu-brcm compatibles: all name the
> Realtek PSE-MCU front-end, not the MCU silicon or the PSE chip behind
> it (see the binding for the prefix rationale). Broadcom PSE MCUs speak
> the same protocol family and are handled by the same shared core
> through the dialect abstraction selected by the '-brcm' compatible.
>
> Power budgeting is left to the MCU firmware; the driver advertises
> PSE_BUDGET_EVAL_STRAT_DYNAMIC (controller-managed budget) accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonas Jelonek <jelonek.jonas@gmail.com>
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 7 +
> drivers/net/pse-pd/Kconfig | 28 +
> drivers/net/pse-pd/Makefile | 3 +
> drivers/net/pse-pd/realtek-pse-mcu-core.c | 1019 +++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/net/pse-pd/realtek-pse-mcu-i2c.c | 163 ++++
> drivers/net/pse-pd/realtek-pse-mcu-uart.c | 156 ++++
> drivers/net/pse-pd/realtek-pse-mcu.h | 87 ++
> 7 files changed, 1463 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/net/pse-pd/realtek-pse-mcu-core.c
> create mode 100644 drivers/net/pse-pd/realtek-pse-mcu-i2c.c
> create mode 100644 drivers/net/pse-pd/realtek-pse-mcu-uart.c
> create mode 100644 drivers/net/pse-pd/realtek-pse-mcu.h
This is quite large, and shouls be split in smaller patches to help
reviewers.
[...]
> +struct rtpse_mcu_dialect {
> + struct rtpse_mcu_opcode opcode[RTPSE_MCU_NUM_CMDS];
> +
> + /*
> + * Response parsers. Each dialect must supply its own; the core calls
> + * these unconditionally rather than carrying a default that would
> + * silently mis-decode bytes from a dialect that forgot to set them.
> + */
> + int (*parse_system_info)(const u8 *payload, struct rtpse_mcu_info *info);
The 2 existing implementation always return 0; you may consider change
it to a void function.
> +static int rtpse_mcu_port_get_voltage(struct pse_controller_dev *pcdev, int id)
> +{
> + struct rtpse_mcu_ctrl *pse = to_rtpse_mcu_ctrl(pcdev);
> + struct rtpse_mcu_port_measurement measurement;
> + int ret;
> + u32 uV;
> +
> + ret = rtpse_mcu_port_get_measurement(pse, id, &measurement);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + /* 64.45mV per LSB */
> + uV = (u32)measurement.voltage_raw * 64450U;
This cast ^^^^^ should be unneeded.
> + return min_t(u32, uV, INT_MAX);
> +}
> +
> +static int rtpse_mcu_port_enable(struct pse_controller_dev *pcdev, int id)
> +{
> + return rtpse_mcu_port_set_state(to_rtpse_mcu_ctrl(pcdev), id, true);
> +}
> +
> +static int rtpse_mcu_port_disable(struct pse_controller_dev *pcdev, int id)
> +{
> + return rtpse_mcu_port_set_state(to_rtpse_mcu_ctrl(pcdev), id, false);
> +}
> +
> +static int rtpse_mcu_port_get_pw_limit(struct pse_controller_dev *pcdev, int id)
> +{
> + struct rtpse_mcu_ctrl *pse = to_rtpse_mcu_ctrl(pcdev);
> + struct rtpse_mcu_port_ext_config config;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = rtpse_mcu_port_get_ext_config(pse, id, &config);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return config.max_power * pse->chip->pw_read_lsb_mW;
> +}
> +
> +static int rtpse_mcu_port_set_pw_limit(struct pse_controller_dev *pcdev, int id, int max_mW)
> +{
> + const struct rtpse_mcu_opcode *type_opc, *val_opc;
> + struct rtpse_mcu_ctrl *pse = to_rtpse_mcu_ctrl(pcdev);
> + const struct rtpse_mcu_chip_info *chip = pse->chip;
> + unsigned int prg_val;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (max_mW < 0 || max_mW > chip->max_mW_per_port)
> + return -ERANGE;
> +
> + type_opc = &pse->dialect->opcode[RTPSE_MCU_CMD_PORT_SET_POWER_LIMIT_TYPE];
> + val_opc = &pse->dialect->opcode[chip->pw_set_cmd];
> + if (!type_opc->valid || !val_opc->valid)
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> + /*
> + * Switch the port to user-defined limit mode first, then program the
> + * limit value. If the second cmd fails, the port is left in
> + * user-defined mode but with the previous limit value; the next
> + * successful set_pw_limit call recovers it.
> + */
> + ret = rtpse_mcu_port_cmd(pse, id, type_opc->op, RTPSE_MCU_PORT_PW_LIMIT_TYPE_USER);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + prg_val = min_t(unsigned int, max_mW / chip->pw_set_lsb_mW, 0xff);
> +
> + return rtpse_mcu_port_cmd(pse, id, val_opc->op, prg_val);
> +}
> +
> +static int rtpse_mcu_port_get_pw_limit_ranges(struct pse_controller_dev *pcdev, int id,
> + struct pse_pw_limit_ranges *out)
> +{
> + struct ethtool_c33_pse_pw_limit_range *range;
> + struct rtpse_mcu_ctrl *pse = to_rtpse_mcu_ctrl(pcdev);
> +
> + range = kzalloc_obj(*range, GFP_KERNEL);
or just:
range = kzalloc_obj(*range);
> +static int rtpse_mcu_discover(struct rtpse_mcu_ctrl *pse, struct rtpse_mcu_info *info)
> +{
> + struct rtpse_mcu_ext_config ext_config;
> + unsigned long deadline;
> + int ret;
> +
> + /*
> + * The MCU may not answer on the bus yet right after power-up or
> + * enable-gpios assertion: depending on the transport it either stays
> + * silent (-ETIMEDOUT) or does not ACK its address at all (-ENXIO /
> + * -EREMOTEIO). Retry within a bounded wall-time window so a slow boot
> + * still probes, while a genuinely unresponsive MCU fails with its real
> + * error instead of deferring forever and masking it.
> + */
> + deadline = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(RTPSE_MCU_BOOT_TIMEOUT_MS);
> + do {
> + ret = rtpse_mcu_get_info(pse, info);
> + if (ret != -ETIMEDOUT && ret != -ENXIO && ret != -EREMOTEIO &&
> + ret != -EAGAIN)
> + break;
> + msleep(RTPSE_MCU_BOOT_RETRY_MS);
> + } while (time_before(jiffies, deadline));
> + if (ret)
> + return dev_err_probe(pse->dev, ret, "failed to read MCU info\n");
> +
> + switch (info->device_id) {
> + case RTPSE_MCU_DEVICE_ID_RTL8238B:
> + pse->chip = &rtl8238b_info;
> + break;
> + case RTPSE_MCU_DEVICE_ID_RTL8239:
> + pse->chip = &rtl8239_info;
> + break;
> + case RTPSE_MCU_DEVICE_ID_RTL8239C:
> + pse->chip = &rtl8239c_info;
> + break;
> + case RTPSE_MCU_DEVICE_ID_BCM59111:
> + pse->chip = &bcm59111_info;
> + break;
> + case RTPSE_MCU_DEVICE_ID_BCM59121:
> + pse->chip = &bcm59121_info;
> + break;
> + default:
> + return dev_err_probe(pse->dev, -EINVAL, "unknown PSE id 0x%x\n",
> + info->device_id);
> + }
> +
> + if (!info->max_ports || info->max_ports > RTPSE_MCU_MAX_PORTS)
> + return dev_err_probe(pse->dev, -EINVAL,
> + "MCU reports invalid port count %u\n", info->max_ports);
> +
> + ret = rtpse_mcu_get_ext_config(pse, &ext_config);
> + if (ret)
> + return dev_err_probe(pse->dev, ret, "failed to read MCU ext config\n");
> +
> + dev_info(pse->dev, "%s MCU, %s (id 0x%04x), %u ports across %u PSE chip(s)\n",
> + pse->dialect->mcu_type_str(info->mcu_type), pse->chip->name,
> + info->device_id, info->max_ports, ext_config.num_of_pses);
The general guidance is to try to avoid unneeded print on dmsg, as they
tend to scary admins, but I personally agree on message on modprobe.
No strong opionion either ways.
/P
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-03 7:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-30 10:56 [PATCH net-next v4 0/2] net: pse-pd: add Realtek/Broadcom PSE MCU support Jonas Jelonek
2026-06-30 10:56 ` [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] dt-bindings: net: pse-pd: add bindings for Realtek/Broadcom PSE MCU Jonas Jelonek
2026-06-30 10:56 ` [PATCH net-next v4 2/2] net: pse-pd: add Realtek/Broadcom PSE MCU driver Jonas Jelonek
2026-07-02 7:13 ` Oleksij Rempel
2026-07-02 11:22 ` Jonas Jelonek
2026-07-03 7:55 ` Paolo Abeni [this message]
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=2ee45ab5-a329-4891-8326-ac8f14b6374a@redhat.com \
--to=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=bjorn@mork.no \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@makrotopia.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=jelonek.jonas@gmail.com \
--cc=kory.maincent@bootlin.com \
--cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=o.rempel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
/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