Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/4] net: dsa: always use phylink

["Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 12:10:20PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 10:43:23 +0100
> "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 09:18:10AM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > I should point out that if a DSA port can be programmed in software to
> > > > support both SGMII and 1000baseX, this will end up selecting SGMII
> > > > irrespective of what the hardware was wire-strapped to and how it was
> > > > initially configured. Do we believe that would be acceptable?  
> > > 
> > > I'm pretty sure the devel b board has 1000BaseX DSA links between its
> > > two switches. Since both should end up SGMII that should be O.K.  
> > 
> > Would such a port have a programmable C_Mode, and would it specify that
> > it supports both SGMII and 1000BaseX ? Without going through a lot of
> > boards and documentation for every switch, I can't say.
> > 
> > I don't think we can come to any conclusion on what the right way to
> > deal with this actually is - we don't have enough information about how
> > this is used across all the platforms we have. I think we can only try
> > something, get it merged into net-next, and wait to see whether anyone
> > complains.
> > 
> > When we have a CPU or DSA port without a fixed-link, phy or sfp specified,
> > I think we should:
> > (a) use the phy-mode property if present, otherwise,
> > (b,i) have the DSA driver return the interface mode that it wants to use
> > for max speed for CPU and DSA ports.
> > (b,ii) in the absence of the DSA driver returning a valid interface mode,
> > we use the supported_interfaces to find an interface which gives the
> > maximum speed (irrespective of duplex?) that falls within the
> > mac capabilities.
> > 
> > If all those fail, then things will break, and we will have to wait for
> > people to report that breakage. Does this sound a sane approach, or
> > does anyone have any other suggestions how to solve this?
> 
> It is a sane approach. But in the future I think we should get rid of
> (b,i): I always considered the max_speed_interface() method a temporary
> solution, until the drivers report what a specific port support and the
> subsystem can then choose whichever mode it wants that is wired and
> supported by hardware. Then we could also make it possible to change
> the CPU interface mode via ethtool, which would be cool...

I can remotely test clearfog, which seems to do the right thing:

[    5.707839] mv88e6085 f1072004.mdio-mii:04: sif=21 if=21(1000base-x) cap=bd
[    5.715114] mv88e6085 f1072004.mdio-mii:04: configuring for fixed/1000base-x link mode

meaning that the supported interfaces (sif) mask only contains
1000base-x, phylink_create() was called with (if) 1000base-x, and the
capabilities (cap) indicates 1000-fd, 100-(h,f)d, and 10-(h,f)d.

I don't think port 5 on the 88e6176 can support any other modes, so
this isn't a particularly good test. My ZII boards aren't powered up
so can't test those with the extra debugging print.

I'll cut a new RFC which includes the debug print so folk can try it
out.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!