[PATCH RFC net-next 5/5] net: dsa: always use phylink for CPU and DSA ports

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 10:37:53PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 06:15:46PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > This is why dsa_port_phylink_register() calls phylink_of_phy_connect()
> > > without checking whether it has a fixed-link or a PHY, because it
> > > doesn't fail even if it doesn't do anything.
> > > 
> > > In fact I've wanted to make a correction to my previous phrasing that
> > > "this function shouldn't be called if phylink_{,fwnode_}connect_phy() is
> > > going to be called later". The correction is "... with a phy-handle".
> > 
> > I'm not sure that clarification makes sense when talking about
> > phylink_connect_phy(), so I think if you're clarifying it with a
> > firmware property, you're only talking about
> > phylink_fwnode_connect_phy() now?
> 
> Yes, it's super hard to verbalize, and this is the reason why I didn't
> add "... with a phy-handle" in the first place.
> 
> I wanted to say: phylink_connect_phy(), OR phylink_fwnode_connect_phy()
> WITH a phy-handle. I shouldn't have conflated them in the first place.

Ah, right, because I interpreted it quite differently!

> > > > > Can phylink absorb all this logic, and automatically call phylink_set_max_fixed_link()
> > > > > based on the following?
> > > > > 
> > > > > (1) struct phylink_config gets extended with a bool fallback_max_fixed_link.
> > > > > (2) DSA CPU and DSA ports set this to true in dsa_port_phylink_register().
> > > > > (3) phylink_set_max_fixed_link() is hooked into this -ENODEV error
> > > > >     condition from phylink_fwnode_phy_connect():
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	phy_fwnode = fwnode_get_phy_node(fwnode);
> > > > > 	if (IS_ERR(phy_fwnode)) {
> > > > > 		if (pl->cfg_link_an_mode == MLO_AN_PHY)
> > > > > 			return -ENODEV; <- here
> > > > > 		return 0;
> > > > > 	}
> > > > 
> > > > My question in response would be - why should this DSA specific behaviour
> > > > be handled completely internally within phylink, when it's a DSA
> > > > specific behaviour? Why do we need boolean flags for this?
> > > 
> > > Because the end result will be simpler if we respect the separation of
> > > concerns that continues to exist, and it's still phylink's business to
> > > say what is and isn't valid. DSA still isn't aware of the bindings
> > > required by phylink, it just passes its fwnode to it. Practically
> > > speaking, I wouldn't be scratching my head as to why we're checking for
> > > half the prerequisites of phylink_set_max_fixed_link() in one place and
> > > for the other half in another.
> > > 
> > > True, through this patch set DSA is creating its own context specific
> > > extension of phylink bindings, but arguably those existed before DSA was
> > > even integrated with phylink, and we're just fixing something now we
> > > didn't realize at the time we'd need to do.
> > > 
> > > I can reverse the question, why would phylink even want to be involved
> > > in how the max fixed link parameters are deduced, and it doesn't just
> > > require that a fixed-link software node is constructed somehow
> > > (irrelevant to phylink how), and phylink is just modified to find and
> > > work with that if it exists? Isn't it for the exact same reason,
> > > separation of concerns, that it's easiest for phylink to figure out what
> > > is the most appropriate maximum fixed-link configuration?
> > 
> > If that could be done, I'd love it, because then we don't have this in
> > phylink at all, and it can all be a DSA problem to solve. It also means
> > that others won't be tempted to use the interface incorrectly.
> > 
> > I'm not sure how practical that is when we have both DT and ACPI to deal
> > with, and ACPI is certainly out of my knowledge area to be able to
> > construct a software node to specify a fixed-link. Maybe it can be done
> > at the fwnode layer? I don't know.
> 
> I don't want to be misunderstood. I brought up software nodes because
> I'm sure you must have thought about this too, before proposing what you
> did here. And unless there's a technical reason against software nodes
> (which there doesn't appear to be, but I don't want to get ahead of
> myself), I figured you must be OK with phylink absorbing the logic, case
> in which I just don't understand why you are pushing back on a proposal
> how to make phylink absorb the logic completely.

The reason I hadn't is because switching DSA to fwnode brings with it
issues for ACPI, and Andrew wants to be very careful about ACPI in
networking - and I think quite rightly. As soon as one switches from
DT APIs to fwnode APIs, you basically permit people an easy path to
re-use DT properties in ACPI-land without the ACPI issues being first
considered.

So, I think if we did go this route, we need Andrew's input.

> > Do you have a handy example of what you're suggesting?
> 
> No, I didn't, but I thought, how hard can it be, and here's a hacked up
> attempt on one of my boards:

Thanks - that looks like something that should be possible to do, and
way better than trying to shoe-horn this into phylink.

My only comment would be that Andrew would disagree with you about this
being "fixing up broken DT" - he has actively encouraged some drivers
to adopt this "default" mode, which means it's anything but "broken"
but it really is part of the DSA firmware description.

> [    4.315754] sja1105 spi0.1: configuring for fixed/rgmii link mode
> [    4.322653] sja1105 spi0.1 swp5 (uninitialized): PHY [mdio at 2d24000:06] driver [Broadcom BCM5464] (irq=POLL)
> [    4.334796] sja1105 spi0.1 swp2 (uninitialized): PHY [mdio at 2d24000:03] driver [Broadcom BCM5464] (irq=POLL)
> [    4.345853] sja1105 spi0.1 swp3 (uninitialized): PHY [mdio at 2d24000:04] driver [Broadcom BCM5464] (irq=POLL)
> [    4.356859] sja1105 spi0.1 swp4 (uninitialized): PHY [mdio at 2d24000:05] driver [Broadcom BCM5464] (irq=POLL)
> [    4.367245] device eth2 entered promiscuous mode
> [    4.371864] DSA: tree 0 setup
> [    4.376971] sja1105 spi0.1: Link is Up - 1Gbps/Full - flow control off
> (...)
> root at black:~# ip link set swp2 up && dhclient -i swp2 && ip addr show swp2
> [   64.762756] fsl-gianfar soc:ethernet at 2d90000 eth2: Link is Up - 1Gbps/Full - flow control off
> [   64.771530] sja1105 spi0.1 swp2: configuring for phy/rgmii-id link mode
> [   68.955048] sja1105 spi0.1 swp2: Link is Up - 1Gbps/Full - flow control off
> 12: swp2 at eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000
>     link/ether 00:1f:7b:63:02:48 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>     inet 10.0.0.68/24 brd 10.0.0.255 scope global dynamic swp2
>        valid_lft 600sec preferred_lft 600sec
> 
> It's by far the messiest patch I've posted to the list (in the interest
> of responding quickly), but if you study the code you can obviously see
> what's missing, basically I've hardcoded the speed to 1000 and I'm
> copying the phy-mode from the real DT node.

Yep - there's at least one other property we need to carry over from the
DT node, which is the "ethernet" property.

> Unfortunately I don't have the time (and most importantly the interest)
> in pushing this any further than that. If you want to take this from
> here and integrate it with phylink_get_caps() I'd be glad to review
> the result. Otherwise, feel free to continue with phylink_set_max_fixed_link().

I think this could be a much better solution to this problem, quite
simply because we then don't end up with phylink_set_max_fixed_link()
which could be abused - and this keeps the complexity where it should
be, in the DSA code.

As I say, though, I think we need Andrew's input on this. Andrew?

I'll look at turning this into a proper solution tomorrow if Andrew is
okay with the fwnode change.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!