On 17/07/15 13:03, Stas Sergeev wrote: > 17.07.2015 21:50, Florian Fainelli пишет: >> On 17/07/15 04:26, Stas Sergeev wrote: >>> 17.07.2015 02:25, Florian Fainelli пишет: >>>> On 16/07/15 07:50, Stas Sergeev wrote: >>>>> Currently fixed_phy driver recognizes only the link-up state. >>>>> This simple patch adds an implementation of link-down state. >>>>> It fixes the status registers when link is down, and also allows >>>>> to register the fixed-phy with link down without specifying the speed. >>>> This patch still breaks my setups here, e.g: drivers/net/dsa/bcm_sf2.c, >>>> but I will look into it. >>>> >>>> Do we really need this for now for your two other patches to work >>>> properly, or is it just nicer to have? >>> Yes, absolutely. >>> Otherwise registering fixed phy will return -EINVAL >>> because of the missing link speed (even though the link >>> is down). >> Ok, I see the problem that you have now. Arguably you could say that >> according to the fixed-link binding, speed needs to be specified and the >> code correctly errors out with such an error if you do not specify it. I > Aren't you missing the fact that .link=0? > I think what you say is true only for the link-up case, no? > .speed==0 is valid for link-down IMHO: no link - zero speed.
Pardon me being very dense and stupid here, but your problem is that the "speed" parameter is not specified in your DT, and we end-up returning -EINVAL from of_phy_register_fixed_link(), is that what is happening? And even if we silenced that error, we would end-up calling fixed_phy_add() which would also return -EINVAL because then, we would have status.link = 1, but no speed. So I better understand what is it that you are after here, and that is also a broken Device Tree, is not it? So this was the reason why in earlier versions of the patchset you ended-up with a given speed which would make us pass this condition, right? > >> So is different is that I use a link_update callback, and so we rely on >> at least one call of this function to initialize the hardware in >> drivers/net/dsa/bcm_sf2.c > Do you mean this?: > core_writel(priv, reg, CORE_STS_OVERRIDE_GMIIP_PORT(port)); > Maybe just moving the HW initialization bits to some init func > will be a quick fix? Well, the problem with that is that to know how we should be configuring the hardware in the adjust_link function, we need to run the link_update function first. By default, there is no auto-negotiation on these fixed links at all, so we cannot rely on any value being programmed other than those specified in DT. > >> for this to work, after that, the hardware >> reflects the fixed link parameters we configured, and we feed the >> fixed_phy_status information from the hardware directly. >> >> >From there I see two different ways to fix this: >> >> - we ignore the fixed_phy_update_regs return value in fixed_phy_add(), >> but that will make us avoid doing verification on the speed, which is >> not so great, but is essentially what your patch does anyway > No, it does not. All it does is to allow no speed _when link is down_, > which is IMHO a very logical fix. The speed checks for the link-up > case are all still there. > >> - we update the use of the fixed PHY link_update in drivers using it > IMHO just 2 drivers: bcmii.c and bcm_sf2.c, and the change > is likely trivial, although of course I am not sure in details. The changes are not trivial, it took a while to get that logic done correctly, and this would increase the number of patches to backport to -stable, which is not ideal. > >> and >> convert them to use fixed_phy_update_state instead, which can take some >> time and effort to convert > Maybe just move the initialization bits out of the link_update > callback, but still use the callback for now? Should be simple, no? Let me see if I have a smart idea other the weekend on how to do this. -- Florian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html