[PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: net: dsa: document internal MDIO bus
Arınç ÜNAL
arinc.unal at arinc9.com
Sat Sep 9 12:53:46 PDT 2023
On 9.09.2023 11:53, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> On 4.09.2023 14:33, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>> Hey Vladimir,
>>
>> On 27.08.2023 15:12, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>> Hi Arınç,
>>>
>>> I am on vacation and I will just reply with some clarification aspects,
>>> without having done any further research on the topic since my last reply.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:33:16AM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>>>> Before I continue commenting, I'd like to state my understanding so we can
>>>> make sure we're on the same page. If a driver doesn't use
>>>> ds->slave_mii_bus, the switch it controls must not have any internal MDIO
>>>> buses. Otherwise the PHYs on these buses couldn't function, and an improper
>>>> driver like this would not be on the official Linux source code.
>>>
>>> A DSA switch port, like any OF-based ethernet-controller which uses
>>> phylink, will use one of the phy-handle, fixed-link or managed properties
>>> to describe the interface connecting the MAC/MAC-side PCS to the PHY.
>>>
>>> At its core, ds->slave_mii_bus is nothing more than a mechanism to make
>>> sense of device trees where the above 3 phylink properties are not present.
>>>
>>> It is completely false to say that if a driver doesn't have ds->slave_mii_bus,
>>> it must not have an internal MDIO bus. Because you could still describe
>>> that internal MDIO bus like below, without making any use of the sole property
>>> that makes ds->slave_mii_bus useful from a dt-bindings perspective.
>>>
>>> ethernet-switch {
>>> ethernet-ports {
>>> port at 0 {
>>> reg = <0>;
>>> phy-handle = <&port0_phy>;
>>> phy-mode = "internal";
>>> };
>>> };
>>>
>>> mdio {
>>> port0_phy: ethernet-phy at 0 {
>>> reg = <0>;
>>> };
>>> };
>>> };
>>>
>>> This is the more universal way of describing the port setup in an
>>> OF-based way. There is also the DSA-specific (and old-style, before phylink)
>>> way of describing the same thing, which relies on the non-OF-based
>>> ds->slave_mii_bus, with bindings that look like this:
>>>
>>> ethernet-switch {
>>> ethernet-ports {
>>> port at 0 {
>>> reg = <0>;
>>> };
>>> };
>>> };
>>>
>>> But, I would say that the first variant of the binding is preferable,
>>> since it is more universal.
>>>
>>> Not all switches that have an internal MDIO bus support the second
>>> variant of the dt-binding (the ones that don't have ds->slave_mii_bus don't).
>>> But, they support the same configuration through the first form.
>>
>> Understood.
>>
>>>
>>> Furthermore, on the U-Boot mailing lists, I have been suggesting that
>>> the DM_DSA driver for mv88e6xxx should not bother to support the second
>>> version of the binding, since it is just more code to be added to handle
>>> a case which can already be described with the more universal first binding.
>>
>> That makes sense.
>>
>>>
>>>> I've checked mscc,vsc7514-switch. What I see is, the architecture is an SoC
>>>> with a switch component. Since the switch component is not designed to be a
>>>> standalone IC, the MDIO bus of the SoC could just as well be used without
>>>> the need to design an MDIO controller specific to the switch component, to
>>>> manage the PHYs. So I see this switch as just another case of a switch
>>>> without an internal MDIO bus.
>>>
>>> Well, we need to clarify the semantics of an "internal" MDIO bus.
>>>
>>> I would say most discrete chips with DSA switches have this SoC-style
>>> architecture, with separate address spaces for the switching IP, MDIO
>>> bus, GPIO controller, IRQ controllers, temperature sensors etc (see
>>> "mscc,vsc7512-switch" which is like "mscc,vsc7514-switch", but it is
>>> controlled over SPIO instead of MMIO). The dt-bindings of most DSA
>>> switches may or may not reflect that discrete chip organization. Those
>>> drivers and dt-bindings could be reimagined so that DSA is not the
>>> top-level driver.
>>>
>>> Yet, I would argue that it's wrong to say that because it isn't an OF
>>> child of the switch, the MDIO bus of the VSC7514 is not internal in the
>>> same way that the Realtek MDIO bus is internal. The switch ports are
>>> connected to internal PHYs on this MDIO bus, and there aren't PHYs on
>>> this MDIO bus that go to other MACs than the switch ports. So, the
>>> VSC7514 MDIO bus could legally be called the internal MDIO bus of the
>>> switch, even if there isn't a parent/child relationship between them.
>>
>> Good point, I had believed that the management interface of all of the PHYs
>> being connected to the MDIO bus - which is not part of the switching IP
>> address space - would be enough to classify the MDIO bus as non-internal.
>>
>> However, the architecture of separate address spaces for the switching IP
>> and MDIO bus is used on any type of IC with the switching feature.
>> Therefore, this characteristic cannot be used to distinguish whether an
>> MDIO bus is of a switch.
>>
>> What we can refer to to classify an internal MDIO bus is by confirming the
>> data interface of all PHYs on the MDIO bus is connected to the switch port
>> MACs, as you have pointed out here.
>>
>> Because the architecture of separate address spaces for the switching IP
>> and MDIO bus is used on any type of IC with the switching feature, it can
>> differ by driver how the MDIO bus is defined on the dt-bindings. So we
>> can't make universal bindings of an internal MDIO bus of a switch that
>> apply to every switch.
>>
>> So, the correct approach is to define things under the switch-specific
>> schema which is affine to the driver, as you have already pointed out.
>> Which schemas to define what will of course differ.
>>
>>>
>>> So, what I'm disagreeing with is your insistence to correlate your
>>> problem with internal MDIO buses. The way in which the problem is
>>> formulated dictates what problem gets solved, and the problem is not
>>> correctly formulated here. It is purely about ds->slave_mii_bus and its
>>> driver-defined OF presence/absence. It is a DSA-specific binding aspect
>>> which not even all DSA switches inherit, let alone bindings outside DSA.
>>
>> Got it.
>>
>>>
>>>>> For switches in the second category, it all depends on the way in which
>>>>> the driver finds the node for of_mdiobus_register().
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so some drivers require the mdio child node. Some require it and the
>>>> compatible property with a certain string.
>>>>
>>>> MDIO controlled Realtek switches do not need the compatible property under
>>>> the mdio child node. There're no compatible strings to make a distinction
>>>> between the SMI and MDIO controlled switches so the best we can do is keep
>>>> it the way it currently is. Define realtek,smi-mdio as a compatible string
>>>> but keep the compatible property optional. I did state this on my reply to
>>>> patch 3 but still received reviewed-bys regardless.
>>>
>>> Yes, because.... [1]
>>>
>>>>> Having identified all switches which make some sort of use of
>>>>> ds->slave_mii_bus, the rule would sound like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. If the schema is that of (need to replace this with compatible
>>>>> strings, I'm too lazy for that):
>>>>>
>>>>> - ksz_switch_ops
>>>>> - mv88e6060_switch_ops
>>>>> - lan9303_switch_ops
>>>>> - rtl8365mb_switch_ops_mdio
>>>>> - b53_switch_ops
>>>>> - vsc73xx_ds_ops
>>>>> - mv88e6xxx
>>>>> - qca8k
>>>>>
>>>>> and we have an "mdio" child, then phylink bindings are mandatory on user ports.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. If the schema is that of gswip_mdio and we have a child node of "lantiq,xrx200-mdio",
>>>>> then phylink bindings are mandatory on user ports (I haven't checked,
>>>>> but it might be that the "lantiq,xrx200-mdio" child is mandatory, and
>>>>> in that case, this goes to category 4 below).
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. If the schema is that of realtek_smi_setup_mdio and we have a child node of
>>>>> "realtek,smi-mdio", then phylink bindings are mandatory on user ports
>>>>> (same comment about the child MDIO note maybe being mandatory).
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. If the switch didn't appear in the above set of rules, then phylink
>>>>> bindings are unconditionally mandatory on user ports.
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't care at all what the drivers that don't use ds->slave_mii_bus
>>>>> do with the "mdio" child node. It doesn't change the fact that their
>>>>> user ports can't have missing phylink bindings.
>>>>
>>>> I partially agree. I say, for the switches without an internal MDIO bus,
>>>> invalidate the mdio child node, and enforce the phylink bindings on the
>>>> user ports. Such as mscc,vsc7514-switch and nxp,sja1105x. For nxp,sja1110x,
>>>> invalidate the mdio child node, and enforce the phylink bindings on the
>>>> user ports if the mdios property is used.
>>>
>>> Why "if the mdios property is used" and not "always"? :-/
>>>
>>> To say it again: because the sja1105 driver does not use ds->slave_mii_bus,
>>> it can make no sense of dt-bindings on user ports which lack phylink properties.
>>> So they are *always* needed. The "mdios" property changes nothing in that regard.
>>
>> Got it.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to add this before I conclude. The way I understand dt-bindings is
>>>> that a binding does not have to translate to an action on the driver.
>>>> Documenting bindings for the sole purpose of describing hardware is a valid
>>>> case.
>>>
>>> [1] ...this. The SMI-controlled and MDIO-controlled Realtek switches are
>>> otherwise the same, right? So why would they have different dt-bindings?
>>
>> Honestly, I'm wondering the answer to this as well. For some reason, when
>> probing the SMI controlled Realtek switches, instead of just letting
>> dsa_switch_setup() populate ds->slave_mii_bus, on realtek_smi_setup_mdio()
>> on realtek-smi.c:
>>
>> - priv->slave_mii_bus is allocated.
>> - mdio_np = of_get_compatible_child(priv->dev->of_node, "realtek,smi-mdio");
>> - priv->slave_mii_bus->dev.of_node = mdio_np;
>> - ds->slave_mii_bus = priv->slave_mii_bus;
>>
>>>
>>>> For example, currently, the MT753X DSA subdriver won't, in any way,
>>>> register the bus OF-based. Still, the mdio property for the switches which
>>>> this driver controls can be documented because the internal mdio bus does
>>>> exist on the hardware.
>>>
>>> It can, but the whole point is: if ds->slave_mii_bus gains an OF presence,
>>> then it loses its core functionality (that user ports can lack phylink
>>> bindings). This is the entire essence of what this discussion should capture.
>>
>> Understood.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So I'd like to keep the mdio property valid for the switches which their
>>>> drivers can only register non-OF-based ds->slave_mii_bus.
>>>>
>>>> In conclusion, what to do:
>>>>
>>>> - Define "the mdio property" and "the enforcement of phylink bindings for
>>>> user ports if mdio property is used" on ethernet-switch.yaml.
>>>> - Invalidate the mdio property on the switches without an internal MDIO
>>>> bus.
>>>> - Define "the enforcement of phylink bindings for user ports" on the
>>>> switches without an internal MDIO bus.
>>>> - Require "the mdio property" for the switches which their driver requires
>>>> it to function.
>>>> - Require "the mdio property" and "the compatible string of the mdio
>>>> property" for the switches which their driver requires them to function.
>>>>
>>>> There's no 1:1 switch to switch compatible string relation, as seen on
>>>> Realtek switches so I'll have to figure that out as I go.
>>>>
>>>> I'm open to your comments to this mail but the gap between discussion and
>>>> end result has widened a lot on this patch series so I'd like to first
>>>> offload this conversation by preparing v2 with what I said here and discuss
>>>> further there.
>>>
>>> Honestly, from my side, a verbal comment in the dt-bindings document
>>> would have been just fine, as long as it is truthful to the reality it
>>> describes.
>>>
>>> You wanted to over-complicate things with an actual schema validation,
>>> and then hooking onto things that are unrelated with the phenomenon that
>>> needs to be captured (like the "mdio" child node, without explicit
>>> regard to whether it is the ds->slave_mii_bus or not).
>>>
>>> It's not about internal MDIO buses in general, it's about whether those
>>> internal MDIO buses are used in ds->slave_mii_bus, and their OF
>>> presence/absence! That is absolutely driver-specific and I would only
>>> expect a driver-specific way of enforcing it. I didn't say it's not
>>> hard, and I didn't ask to enforce it, either.
>>
>> OK, I believe we're on the same page now, I will start working on properly
>> enforcing this.
>
> I'm writing below as a mix of patch log and discussion.
>
> Phylink bindings are required for ports that are controlled by OF-based
> buses. DSA, like any other driver utilising the Linux MDIO infrastructure,
> can register a bus. If I understand correctly, non-OF-based registration of
> OpenFirmware MDIO buses is a feature specific to DSA which certain DSA
> subdrivers make use of.
>
> There's no way to distinguish which port is controlled by which driver's
> MDIO bus on the bindings so we can't enforce phylink bindings for all user
> ports as this would also enforce phylink bindings on user ports controlled
> by a non-OF-based bus.
>
> But we can know when DSA won't create a non-OF-based bus. That leaves us
> with only OF-based buses in which case we can enforce phylink bindings for
> all user ports. So we need to check each DSA subdriver to see when all
> buses will be OF-based.
We also need to decide the phylink bindings for user ports.
Phylink bindings for CPU and DSA ports:
allOf:
- required:
- phy-mode
- oneOf:
- required:
- fixed-link
- required:
- phy-handle
- required:
- managed
On one of the mscc,ocelot.yaml examples, "phy-handle" and "managed" are
defined on the same user port. Assuming the example is correct, we must
allow more than 1 of these properties to be used at the same time for user
ports.
We need to at least allow "phy-handle" and "managed" to be used at the same
time. Does "managed" also depend on "phy-handle"?
For example:
oneOf:
- required:
- fixed-link
- anyOf:
- required:
- phy-handle
- required:
- managed
dependencies:
managed: [ phy-handle ]
Arınç
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list