Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 12/14] dt-bindings: net: dsa: ocelot: add ocelot-ext documentation

[Colin Foster]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 02:15:58PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:26:00PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 05:29:26PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> > > ---
> > > +      - phy-mode = "internal": on ports 0, 1, 2, 3
> > 
> > More PHY interface types are supported. Please document them all.
> > It doesn't matter what the driver supports. Drivers and device tree
> > blobs should be able to have different lifetimes. A driver which doesn't
> > support the SERDES ports should work with a device tree that defines
> > them, and a driver that supports the SERDES ports should work with a
> > device tree that doesn't.
> 
> This will change my patch a little bit then. I didn't undersand this
> requirement.
> 
> My current device tree has all 8 ethernet ports populated. ocelot_ext
> believes "all these port modes are accepted" by way of a fully-populated
> vsc7512_port_modes[] array.
> 
> As a result, when I'm testing, swp4 through swp7 all enumerate as
> devices, though they don't actually function. It isn't until serdes /
> phylink / pcs / pll5 come along that they become functional ports.
> 
> I doubt this is desired. Though if I'm using the a new macro
> OCELOT_PORT_MODE_NONE, felix.c stops after felix_validate_phy_mode.
> 
> I think the only thing I can do is to allow felix to ignore invalid phy
> modes on some ports (which might be desired) and continue on with the
> most it can do. That seems like a potential improvement to the felix
> driver...
> 
> The other option is to allow the ports to enumerate, but leave them
> non-functional. This is how my system currently acts, but as I said, I
> bet it would be confusing to any user.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 

Also, for what its worth, I tried this just now by making this change:

err = felix_validate_phy_mode(felix, port, phy_mode);
if (err < 0) {
        dev_err(dev, "Unsupported PHY mode %s on port %d\n",
                phy_modes(phy_mode), port);
        of_node_put(child);
 -      return err;
 +      continue;
}

This functions in that I only see swp1-swp3, but I don't think it
should - it is just leaving phy_mode set to 0 (PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA).
My guess is it'll need more logic to say "don't add these DSA ports because
the driver doesn't support those PHY interfaces"


[    3.555367] ocelot-switch ocelot-switch.4.auto: Unsupported PHY mode qsgmii on port 4
[    3.563551] ocelot-switch ocelot-switch.4.auto: Unsupported PHY mode qsgmii on port 5
[    3.571570] ocelot-switch ocelot-switch.4.auto: Unsupported PHY mode qsgmii on port 6
[    3.579459] ocelot-switch ocelot-switch.4.auto: Unsupported PHY mode qsgmii on port 7
[    4.271832] ocelot-switch ocelot-switch.4.auto: PHY [ocelot-miim0.2.auto-mii:00] driver [Generic PHY] (irq=POLL)
[    4.282715] ocelot-switch ocelot-switch.4.auto: configuring for phy/internal link mode
[    4.296478] ocelot-switch ocelot-switch.4.auto swp1 (uninitialized): PHY [ocelot-miim0.2.auto-mii:01] driver [Generic PHY] (irq=POLL)
[    4.312876] ocelot-switch ocelot-switch.4.auto swp2 (uninitialized): PHY [ocelot-miim0.2.auto-mii:02] driver [Generic PHY] (irq=POLL)
[    4.328897] ocelot-switch ocelot-switch.4.auto swp3 (uninitialized): PHY [ocelot-miim0.2.auto-mii:03] driver [Generic PHY] (irq=POLL)
[    5.032849] ocelot-switch ocelot-switch.4.auto swp4 (uninitiailized): validation of qsgmii with support 00000000,00000000,000062ff and advertisement 00000000,00000000,000062ff failed: -EINVAL
[    5.051265] ocelot-switch ocelot-switch.4.auto swp4 (uninitialized): failed to connect to PHY: -EINVAL
[    5.060670] ocelot-switch ocelot-switch.4.auto swp4 (uninitialized): error -22 setting up PHY for tree 0, switch 0, port 4
(repeated for swp5-7)