[net-next,05/14] net: stmmac: add stmmac core serdes support

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 05:04:53AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 11:21:25AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
> > email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
> > 
> > For local reproduction steps see https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html
> > ---
> > net: stmmac: add stmmac core serdes support
> > 
> > This commit adds SerDes PHY support to the stmmac core driver, moving it
> > from platform glue into the integrated PCS driver. The SerDes is managed
> > through phy_init/phy_exit for lifecycle and phy_power_on/phy_power_off
> > for the power state.
> > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_pcs.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_pcs.c
> > > index 2f826fe7229b..4d1902f3a58f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_pcs.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_pcs.c
> > 
> > [ ... ]
> > 
> > > static int dwmac_integrated_pcs_enable(struct phylink_pcs *pcs)
> > > {
> > > 	struct stmmac_pcs *spcs = phylink_pcs_to_stmmac_pcs(pcs);
> > > +	struct stmmac_priv *priv = spcs->priv;
> > > +	int ret;
> > >
> > > -	stmmac_mac_irq_modify(spcs->priv, 0, spcs->int_mask);
> > > +	ret = dwmac_serdes_power_on(priv);
> > > +	if (ret)
> > > +		return ret;
> > > +
> > > +	if (spcs->interface != PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA) {
> > > +		ret = dwmac_serdes_set_mode(priv, spcs->interface);
> > > +		if (ret)
> > > +			return ret;
> >                         ^^^^^^^^^^
> > 
> > If dwmac_serdes_set_mode() fails here, doesn't this leave the SerDes in
> > a powered-on state? dwmac_serdes_power_on() succeeded at this point but
> > there's no corresponding dwmac_serdes_power_off() call before returning
> > the error.
> > 
> > Looking at phylink_major_config(), it appears to discard the return
> > value from phylink_pcs_enable(), so the caller won't know to call
> > pcs_disable() to clean up the power state.
> 
> This AI analysis is incorrect.
> 
> By the time phylink_pcs_enable() has been called, the PCS is already
> plumbed in to phylink. It _will_ have phylink_pcs_disable() called on
> it at some point in the future, either by having the PCS displaced
> by another in a subsequent phylink_major_config(), or by a driver
> calling phylink_stop().
> 
> If we clean up here, then we will call dwmac_serdes_power_off() twice.
> 
> Yes, it's not "nice" but that's the way phylink is right now, and
> without reworking phylink to record that pcs_enable() has failed
> to avoid a subsequent pcs_disable(), and to stop the major config
> (which then potentially causes a whole bunch of other issues). I
> don't even want to think about that horrid scenario at the moment.

More to the point, if dwmac_integrated_pcs_enable() fails at
dwmac_serdes_power_on() (thus, the SerDes is _not_ powered on), by your
own admission of this PCS calling convention, sooner or later
dwmac_integrated_pcs_disable() -> dwmac_serdes_power_off() will still be
called, leading to a negative phy->power_count.

That is to say, if the model is "irrespective of whether pcs_enable()
succeeds or fails mid way, pcs_disable is called anyway()", then these
methods are not prepared to handle that reliably.