[PATCH net-next v2 6/6] net: dsa: b53: remove eee_enabled/eee_active in b53_get_mac_eee()

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 08:25:17PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/6/2024 5:29 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 01:12:33PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > I know next to nothing about EEE and especially the implementation on
> > > > Broadcom switches. But is the information brought by B53_EEE_LPI_INDICATE
> > > > completely redundant? Is it actually in the system's best interest to
> > > > ignore it?
> > > 
> > > That's a review comment that should have been made when the original
> > > change to phylib was done, because it's already ignored in kernels
> > > today since the commit changing phylib that I've referenced in this
> > > series - since e->eee_enabled and e->eee_active will be overwritten by
> > > phylib.
> > 
> > That's fair, but commit d1420bb99515 ("net: phy: improve generic EEE
> > ethtool functions") is dated November 2018, and my involvement with the
> > kernel started in March 2019. So it would have been a bit difficult for
> > me to make this observation back then.
> > 
> > > If we need B53_EEE_LPI_INDICATE to do something, then we need to have
> > > a discussion about it, and decide how that fits in with the EEE
> > > interface, and how to work around phylib's implementation.
> > 
> > Hopefully Florian or Doug can quickly clarify whether this is the case
> > or not.
> 
> Russell's replacement is actually a better one because it will return a
> stable state. B53_EEE_LPI_INDICATE would indicate when the switch port's
> built-in PHY asserts the LPI signal to its MAC, which could be transient
> AFAICT.
> -- 
> Florian

Thanks, Florian.