On 08/27/2018 02:09 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 01:52:42PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 08/27/2018 01:35 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>> @@ -210,6 +228,17 @@
>>>> reg = <4>;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> + port@5 {
>>>> + label = "sfp";
>>>> + phy-mode = "sgmii";
>>>> + reg = <5>;
>>>> + sfp = <&sfp>;
>>>> + fixed-link {
>>>> + speed = <1000>;
>>>> + full-duplex;
>>>> + };
>>>
>>> Hi Florian
>>>
>>> You might want to add a comment about why you are using fixed-link and
>>> sgmii, which seems very odd. Is it even correct?
>>
>> Probably not, this is kind of left over from before adding the sfp
>> phandle, but if I do remove it, and I can see the DSA slave network
>> device fail to initialize, likely because we destroy the PHYLINK instance.
>>
>> AFAIR, when we talked about this with Russell, I did not see why we had
>> to comment out the following:
>>
>> diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
>> index 962c4fd338ba..f3ae16dbf8d8 100644
>> --- a/net/dsa/slave.c
>> +++ b/net/dsa/slave.c
>> @@ -1227,7 +1227,7 @@ static int dsa_slave_phy_setup(struct net_device
>> *slave_dev)
>> netdev_err(slave_dev,
>> "failed to connect to port %d: %d\n",
>> dp->index, ret);
>> - phylink_destroy(dp->pl);
>> + //phylink_destroy(dp->pl);
>> return ret;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> maybe you know?
>
> Hi Florian
>
> I didn't need anything like this for the mv88e6xxx. I had patches
> merged in -rc1 to make SFF work connected to the mv88e6390. The DT
> change was not merged, but it is here:
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/955635/
>
> + port@9 {
> + reg = <9>;
> + label = "sff2";
> + phy-mode = "sgmii";
> + managed = "in-band-status";
^=====
Yes that is what I was missing, thanks Andrew! Still not 100% sure why
having a "sfp" phandle is not enough, but I suppose there are
problematic cases like the ZII Devel Rev. B where we have a SFF and we
are not able to auto-negotiate the fiber connection.
--
Florian
