[PATCH net-next] net: dsa: mt7530: fix support for MT7531BE

[Arınç ÜNAL]

On 11.04.2023 22:43, Daniel Golle wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:30:06PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>> On 11.04.2023 03:11, Daniel Golle wrote:
>>> There are two variants of the MT7531 switch IC which got different
>>> features (and pins) regarding port 5:
>>>    * MT7531AE: SGMII/1000Base-X/2500Base-X SerDes
>>>    * MT7531BE: RGMII
>>>
>>> Moving the creation of the SerDes PCS from mt753x_setup to mt7530_probe
>>> with commit 6de285229773 ("net: dsa: mt7530: move SGMII PCS creation to
>>> mt7530_probe function") works fine for MT7531AE which got two instances
>>> of mtk-pcs-lynxi, however, MT7531BE requires mt7531_pll_setup to setup
>>> clocks before the single PCS on port 6 (usually used as CPU port)
>>> starts to work and hence the PCS creation failed on MT7531BE.
>>>
>>> Fix this by introducing a pointer to mt7531_create_sgmii function in
>>> struct mt7530_priv and call it again at the end of mt753x_setup like it
>>> was before commit 6de285229773 ("net: dsa: mt7530: move SGMII PCS
>>> creation to mt7530_probe function").
>>
>> If I understand correctly, this patch does two things.
>>
>> Run mt7531_create_sgmii() from mt753x_setup(), after mt7531_setup() and
>> mt7531_setup_common() is run so that PCS on MT7531BE works.
> 
>>
>> Run the PCS creation code inside the loop only once if
>> mt7531_dual_sgmii_supported() is false so it doesn't set the nonexistent
>> port 5 SGMII on MT7531BE.
> 
> Yes, both is correct.
> 
>>
>> Regarding the first part:
>> I was actually in the middle of moving the code until after
>> mt7530_pll_setup() and mt7531_pll_setup() on mt7530_setup() and
>> mt7531_setup() to mt7530_probe(). To me it makes more sense to run them on
>> mt7530_probe() as there's a good amount of duplicate code on mt7530_setup()
>> and mt7531_setup().
> 
> I thought about doing that as well, however, note that you will have to
> move all the reset and regulator setup procedure to mt7530_probe() as
> well then, as PLL setup currently happens after that, and that's
> probably for a reason.
> 
> As the reset and regulator setup works differently on MT7530 and
> MT7531, and depending on whether it's a standalone IC package or MCM, I
> believe changes unifying this will have to be tested on a lot of
> boards...

Not if we don't change the behaviour at all for both switches, which is 
what I intend to do.

> 
>>
>> This will resolve the problem here, and make my future work regarding the
>> PHY muxing feature on the MT7530 switch possible to do.
>>
>> Regarding the second part:
>> I'll take your changes to my current RFC patch series while addressing
>> Jesse's suggestion if this is fine by you.
> 
> Yes, I'd appreciate that and I'm ready to test and review once you post
> your updated series.

Sounds good, cheers.

Arınç