[PATCH v6 05/21] net-next: stmmac: Add dwmac-sun8i

Tue Jun 27 10:37:34 PDT 2017

On 06/27/2017 10:29 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 02:37:48PM +0200, Corentin Labbe wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:33:56AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 27/06/17 11:23, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 于 2017年6月27日 GMT+08:00 下午6:15:58, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara at arm.com> 写到:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27/06/17 10:41, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:02:45AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (CC:ing some people from that Rockchip dmwac series)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 27/06/17 09:21, Corentin Labbe wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 04:11:21PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Corentin Labbe
>>>>>>>>> <clabbe.montjoie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 01:18:23AM +0100, André Przywara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 31/05/17 08:18, Corentin Labbe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The dwmac-sun8i is a heavy hacked version of stmmac hardware by
>>>>>>>>>>>> allwinner.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact the only common part is the descriptor management and
>>>>> the first
>>>>>>>>>>>> register function.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know I am a bit late with this, but while adapting the U-Boot
>>>>> driver
>>>>>>>>>>> to the new binding I was wondering about the internal PHY
>>>>> detection:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So here you seem to deduce the usage of the internal PHY by the
>>>>> PHY
>>>>>>>>>>> interface specified in the DT (MII = internal, RGMII =
>>>>> external).
>>>>>>>>>>> I think I raised this question before, but isn't it perfectly
>>>>> legal for
>>>>>>>>>>> a board to use MII with an external PHY even on those SoCs that
>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>>> an internal PHY?
>>>>>>>>>>> On the first glance that does not make too much sense, but apart
>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> not being the correct binding to describe all of the SoCs
>>>>> features I see
>>>>>>>>>>> two scenarios:
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) A board vendor might choose to not use the internal PHY
>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>>>>> has bugs, lacks features (configurability) or has other issues.
>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>> instance I have heard reports that the internal PHY makes the
>>>>> SoC go
>>>>>>>>>>> rather hot, possibly limiting the CPU frequency. By using an
>>>>> external
>>>>>>>>>>> MII PHY (which are still cheaper than RGMII PHYs) this can be
>>>>> avoided.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) A PHY does not necessarily need to be directly connected to
>>>>>>>>>>> magnetics. Indeed quite some boards use (RG)MII to connect to a
>>>>> switch
>>>>>>>>>>> IC or some other network circuitry, for instance fibre
>>>>> connectors.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So I was wondering if we would need an explicit:
>>>>>>>>>>>       allwinner,use-internal-phy;
>>>>>>>>>>> boolean DT property to signal the usage of the internal PHY?
>>>>>>>>>>> Alternatively we could go with the negative version:
>>>>>>>>>>>       allwinner,disable-internal-phy;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or what about introducing a new "allwinner,internal-mii-phy"
>>>>> compatible
>>>>>>>>>>> string for the *PHY* node and use that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I just want to avoid that we introduce a binding that causes us
>>>>>>>>>>> headaches later. I think we can still fix this with a followup
>>>>> patch
>>>>>>>>>>> before the driver and its binding hit a release kernel.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> Andre.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I just see some patch, where "phy-mode = internal" is valid.
>>>>>>>>>> I will try to find a way to use it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you provide a link?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/23/479
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of using phy-mode for this. There's no guarantee
>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>> mode the internal PHY uses. That's what phy-mode is for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can understand Chen-Yu's concerns, but ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For each soc the internal PHY mode is know and setted in
>>>>> emac_variant/internal_phy
>>>>>>>> So its not a problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that is true as well, at least for now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So while I agree that having a separate property to indicate
>>>>>>> the usage of the internal PHY would be nice, I am bit tempted
>>>>>>> to use this easier approach and piggy back on the existing
>>>>>>> phy-mode property.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're trying to fix an issue that works for now too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we want to consider future weird cases, then we must
>>>>>> consider all of them. And the phy mode changing is definitely
>>>>>> not really far fetched.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Chen-Yu, and I really feel like the compatible
>>>>>> solution you suggested would cover both your concerns, and
>>>>>> ours.
>>>>>
>>>>> So something like this?
>>>>> 	emac: emac at 1c30000 {
>>>>> 	    compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-h3-emac";
>>>>> 	    ...
>>>>> 	    phy-mode = "mii";
>>>>> 	    phy-handle = <&int_mii_phy>;
>>>>> 	    ...
>>>>>
>>>>> 	    mdio: mdio {
>>>>>                #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>>                #size-cells = <0>;
>>>>>                int_mii_phy: ethernet-phy at 1 {
>>>>>                    compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-h3-ephy";
>>>>>                    syscon = <&syscon>;
>>>>
>>>> The MAC still needs to set some bits of syscon register.
>>>
>>> Yes, the syscon property needs also to be in the MAC node, that
>>> was meant to be somewhere in the second "..." ;-)
>>>
>>> But now since Chen-Yu mentioned that we need to set up the PHY *first*
>>> to make it actually discoverable via MDIO, I wonder if we could change
>>> this to:
>>> 1) have the DT as described here
>>> 2) Let the dwmac-sun8i driver peek into the node referenced by
>>> phy-handle and check the compatible string there.
>>> 3) If that matches some allwinner internal PHY name, it sets up the PHY
>>> to make it respond when the MDIO driver queries its bus.
>>>
>>> Or can a PHY driver set itself up (since we have clocks and resets
>>> properties in there) *before* the MDIO bus gets scanned?
>>> Chen-Yu's comment in the other mail hints at that this is not easily
>>> possible.
>>
>> I think adding phy compatible just make things more complex.
>>
>> I think the patch series I sent early fix all problems without more
>> complexity since:
>>
>> - it does not add more DT stuff
>> - it use an already used in tree DT phy-mode "internal" (and so phy
>>   mode PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_INTERNAL)
> 
>   - it doesn't cover all the concerns we ha>   - it uses an undocumented value, with an unclear implication

No it's no longer undocumented since [1]

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=29b65f5f97632722bb80969377e5b0e2401fb392

Due to the timezone difference, you guys have already managed to have
several exchanges, hopefully I will have a chance to review your
discussions a little later today.
-- 
Florian