Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/11] net: phy: introduce phy_has_c45_registers()

[Michael Walle <mwalle@kernel.org>]

Am 2023-08-01 17:57, schrieb Russell King (Oracle):
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 05:20:22PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
>> > In the case of the above (the code in __phy_read_mmd()), I wouldn't
>> > at least initially change the test there.
>> >
>> > phydev->is_c45 will only be true if we probed the PHY using clause
>> > 45 accesses. Thus, it will be set if "the bus supports clause 45
>> > accesses" _and_ "the PHY responds to those accesses".
>> >
>> > Changing that to only "the bus supports clause 45 accesses" means
>> > that a PHY supporting only clause 22 access with indirect clause
>> > 45 access then fails if it's used with a bus that supports both
>> > clause 22 and clause 45 accesses.
>> 
>> Yeah of course. It was more about the naming, but I just realized
>> that with mdiobus_supports_c45() you can't access the original
>> "is_c45" property of the PHY. So maybe this patch needs to be split
>> into two to get rid of .is_c45:
>> 
>> First a mechanical one:
>> phy_has_c45_registers() {
>>    return phydev->is_c45;
>> }
> 
> Andrew's objection was that "phy_has_c45_registers" is a misnomer, and
> suggested "_transfers" instead - because a PHY can have C45 registers
> that are accessible via the indirect registers in C22 space.

I'm confused now. Andrew suggested to split it into four different
functions:

phy_has_c22_registers()
phy_has_c45_registers()
phy_has_c22_transfers()
phy_has_c45_transfers()

Without a functional change. That is, either return phydev->is_c45
or the inverse.

You seem to suggest to use either
phy_supports_c45_transfers() or
phy_has_c22_registers()

I'm not sure how to continue now.

> I'd go one further:
> 
> static bool phy_supports_c45_transfers(struct phy_device *phydev)
> {
> 	return phydev->is_c45;
> }
> 
> Since that covers that (a) the bus needs to support C45 transfers and
> (b) the PHY also needs to respond to C45 transfers.
> 
> If we want to truly know whether a clause 22 PHY has clause 45
> registers, that's difficult to answer, because then you're into the
> realms of "does this PHY implement the indirect access method" and
> we haven't been keeping track of that for the PHYs we have drivers
> for - many will do, but it's optional in clause 22. The problem is
> that when it's not implemented, the registers could be serving some
> other function.
> 
>> phy_has_c22_registers() {
>>   return !phydev->is_c45;
>> }
> 
> The reverse is not true, as clause 45 PHYs can also support clause 22
> registers - from 802.3:
> 
>  "For cases where a single entity combines Clause 45 MMDs with  Clause 
> 22
>  registers, then the Clause 22 registers may be accessed using the 
> Clause
>  45 electrical interface and the Clause 22 management frame structure."
> 
>  "Bit 5.0 is used to indicate that Clause 22 functionality has been
>  implemented within a Clause 45 electrical interface device."
> 
> Therefore, this would more accurately describe when Clause 22 registers
> are present for a PHY:
> 
> static bool phy_has_c22_registers(struct phy_device *phydev)
> {
> 	/* If we probed the PHY without clause 45 accesses, then by
> 	 * definition, clause 22 registers must be present.
> 	 */
> 	if (!phydev->is_c45)
> 		return true;
> 
> 	/* If we probed the PHY with clause 45 accesses, clause 22
> 	 * registers may be present if bit 0 in the Devices-in-pacakge
> 	 * register pair is set.
> 	 */
> 	return phydev->c45_ids.devices_in_package & BIT(0);
> }
> 
> Note that this doesn't take account of whether the bus supports clause
> 22 register access - there are a number of MDIO buses that do not
> support such accesses, and they may be coupled with a PHY that does
> support clause 22 registers.
> 
> I'm aware of a SFP with a Realtek PHY on that falls into this exact
> case, and getting that working is progressing at the moment.
> 
>> For all the places Andrew said it's correct. Leave all the
>> other uses of .is_c45 as is for now and rework them in a
>> later patch to use mdiobus_supports_{c22,c45}().
> 
> For the two cases in marvell10g and bcm84881, the test there for
> is_c45 is purely to determine "was this ID found on a PHY supporting
> clause 45 access" - however, in both cases, a check is made for MMDs
> present in devices_in_package which will fail if the PHY wasn't
> discovered in clause 45 mode.
> 
> Note that 88x3310 does not support clause 22 access. I forget whether
> bcm84881 does or not.

So a simple "phydev->is_c45" should be enough? Why do you test
for the MMD presence bits?

-michael