Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phylink: require supported_interfaces to be filled

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

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 12:19:38AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> On 20/5/23 20:41, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > We have been requiring the supported_interfaces bitmap to be filled in
> > by MAC drivers that have a mac_select_pcs() method. Now that all MAC
> > drivers fill in the supported_interfaces bitmap, it is time to enforce
> > this. We have already required supported_interfaces to be set in order
> > for optical SFPs to be configured in commit f81fa96d8a6c ("net: phylink:
> > use phy_interface_t bitmaps for optical modules").
> > 
> > Refuse phylink creation if supported_interfaces is empty, and remove
> > code to deal with cases where this mask is empty.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
> > ---
> > I believe what I've said above is indeed the case, but there is always
> > the chance that something has been missed and this will cause breakage.
> > I would post as RFC and ask for testing, but in my experience that is
> > a complete waste of time as it doesn't result in any testing feedback.
> > So, it's probably better to get it merged into net-next and then wait
> > for any reports of breakage.
> 
> This commit breaks a platform I have with a Marvell 88e6350 switch.
> During boot up it now fails with:
> 
>     ...
>     mv88e6085 d0072004.mdio-mii:11: switch 0x3710 detected: Marvell 88E6350, revision 2
>     mv88e6085 d0072004.mdio-mii:11: phylink: error: empty supported_interfaces
>     error creating PHYLINK: -22
>     mv88e6085: probe of d0072004.mdio-mii:11 failed with error -22
>     ...
> 
> The 6350 looks to be similar to the 6352 in many respects, though it lacks
> a SERDES interface, but it otherwise mostly seems compatible. Using the 6352
> phylink_get_caps function instead of the 6185 one fixes this:
> 
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> @@ -5418,7 +5418,7 @@ static const struct mv88e6xxx_ops mv88e6350_ops = {
>         .set_max_frame_size = mv88e6185_g1_set_max_frame_size,
>         .stu_getnext = mv88e6352_g1_stu_getnext,
>         .stu_loadpurge = mv88e6352_g1_stu_loadpurge,
> -       .phylink_get_caps = mv88e6185_phylink_get_caps,
> +       .phylink_get_caps = mv88e6352_phylink_get_caps,
>  };

Based on what you say, this is probably correct, but I've no idea as I
don't have any data on the 88e6350.

> The story doesn't quite end here though. With this fix in place support
> for the 6350 is then again broken by commit b92143d4420f ("net: dsa:
> mv88e6xxx: add infrastructure for phylink_pcs"). This results in a dump
> on boot up:
> 
>     ...
>     mv88e6085 d0072004.mdio-mii:11: switch 0x3710 detected: Marvell 88E6350, revision 2
>     8<--- cut here ---
>     Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000000 when read
>     [00000000] *pgd=00000000
>     Internal error: Oops: 5 [#1] ARM
>     Modules linked in:
>     CPU: 0 PID: 8 Comm: kworker/u2:0 Not tainted 6.7.0-rc2-dirty #26
>     Hardware name: Marvell Armada 370/XP (Device Tree)
>     Workqueue: events_unbound deferred_probe_work_func
>     PC is at mv88e6xxx_port_setup+0x1c/0x44
>     LR is at dsa_port_devlink_setup+0x74/0x154
>     pc : [<c057ea24>]    lr : [<c0819598>]    psr: a0000013
>     sp : c184fce0  ip : c542b8f4  fp : 00000000
>     r10: 00000001  r9 : c542a540  r8 : c542bc00
>     r7 : c542b838  r6 : c5244580  r5 : 00000005  r4 : c5244580
>     r3 : 00000000  r2 : c542b840  r1 : 00000005  r0 : c1a02040
>     ...
> 
> I can see that the mv88e6350_ops struct doesn't have an initializer for
> pcs_ops.

You mentioned that the 6350 doesn't have serdes, so there should be no
PCS. mv88e6xxx_port_setup() probably should be doing:

-	if (chip->info->ops->pcs_ops->pcs_init) {
+	if (chip->info->ops->pcs_ops &&
+	    chip->info->ops->pcs_ops->pcs_init) {

> This gets the 6350 switch back to working again (on current linux 6.7-rc2).
> I am not entirely sure if this needs a dedicated phylink_get_caps
> and pcs_ops for the 6350, or if it is safe to use the 6352 ones?

Without knowing what the 6350 cmode values are, I can't comment.

> Looking at the mv88e6351_ops I am guessing it is going to suffer the
> same problems too.

Again, it's a similar problem - I have no information for the 6351
so I could only make guesses.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!