[PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the interface mode

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:14:00PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > So currently we try to enable C37 AN in 2500base-x mode, although
> > > the standard says that it shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be there
> > > presumably because they want it to work with C73 AN.
> > > 
> > > I don't know how to solve this issue. Maybe declare a new PHY interface
> > > mode constant, 2500base-x-no-c37-an ?
> > 
> > So this is essentially what I'm asking, and you didn't necessarily fully
> > answer. I take it that there exist Marvell switches which enable in-band
> > autoneg for 2500base-x and switches which don't, and managed = "in-band-status"
> > has nothing to do with that decision. Right?
> 
> I think we're getting a little too het up over this.

No, I think it's relevant to this patch set.

> We have 1000base-X where, when we're not using in-band-status, we don't
> use autoneg (some drivers that weren't caught in review annoyingly do
> still use autoneg, but they shouldn't). We ignore the ethtool autoneg
> bit.
> 
> We also have 1000base-X where we're using in-band-status, and we then
> respect the ethtool autoneg bit.
> 
> So, wouldn't it be logical if 2500base-X were implemented the same way,
> and on setups where 2500base-X does not support clause 37 AN, we
> clear the ethtool autoneg bit? If we have 2500base-X being used as the
> media link, surely this is the right behaviour?

The ethtool autoneg bit is only relevant when the PCS is the last thing
before the medium. But if the SERDES protocol connects the MAC to the PHY,
or the MAC to another MAC (such as the case here, CPU or DSA ports),
there won't be any ethtool bit to take into consideration, and that's
where my question is. Is there any expected correlation between enabling
in-band autoneg and the presence or absence of managed = "in-band-status"?

> (This has implications for the rate adaption case, since the 2500base-X
> link is not the media, and therefore the state of the autoneg bit
> shouldn't apply to the 2500base-X link.)

This is closer to what I was interested in knowing, but still not that.