Hi Russell,
On 11/30/2017 07:28 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:10:18AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 08:51:21AM +0000, Yan Markman wrote:
>>> The phylink_stop is called before phylink_disconnect_phy
>>> You could see in mvpp2.c:
>>>
>>> mvpp2_stop_dev() {
>>> phylink_stop(port->phylink);
>>> }
>>>
>>> mvpp2_stop() {
>>> mvpp2_stop_dev(port);
>>> phylink_disconnect_phy(port->phylink);
>>> }
>>>
>>> .ndo_stop = mvpp2_stop,
>>
>> Sorry, I don't have this in mvpp2.c, so I have no visibility of what
>> you're working with.
>>
>> What you have above looks correct, and I see no reason why the p21
>> patch would not have resolved your issue. The p21 patch ensures
>> that phylink_resolve() gets called and completes before phylink_stop()
>> returns. In that case, phylink_resolve() will call the mac_link_down()
>> method if the link is not already down. It will also print the "Link
>> is Down" message.
>>
>> Florian has already tested this patch after encountering a similar
>> issue, and has reported that it solves the problem for him. I've also
>> tested it with mvneta, and the original mvpp2x driver on Macchiatobin.
>>
>> Maybe there's something different about mvpp2, but as I have no
>> visibility of that driver and the modifications therein, I can't
>> comment further other than stating that it works for three different
>> implementations.
>>
>> Maybe you could try and work out what's going on with the p21 patch
>> in your case?
>
> I think I now realise what's probably going on.
>
> If you call netif_carrier_off() before phylink_stop(), then phylink will
> believe that the link is already down, and so it won't bother calling
> mac_link_down() - it will believe that the link is already down.
>
> I'll update the documentation for phylink_stop() to spell out this
> aspect.
>
There are pretty high number of net drivers which do call
netif_carrier_off(dev);
before
phy_stop(dev->phydev);
in .ndo_stop() callback.
As per you comment this seems to be incorrect, so should such calls be removed?
--
regards,
-grygorii
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 11:07:22AM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> On 11/30/2017 07:28 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:10:18AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 08:51:21AM +0000, Yan Markman wrote:
> >>> The phylink_stop is called before phylink_disconnect_phy
> >>> You could see in mvpp2.c:
> >>>
> >>> mvpp2_stop_dev() {
> >>> phylink_stop(port->phylink);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> mvpp2_stop() {
> >>> mvpp2_stop_dev(port);
> >>> phylink_disconnect_phy(port->phylink);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> .ndo_stop = mvpp2_stop,
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't have this in mvpp2.c, so I have no visibility of what
> >> you're working with.
> >>
> >> What you have above looks correct, and I see no reason why the p21
> >> patch would not have resolved your issue. The p21 patch ensures
> >> that phylink_resolve() gets called and completes before phylink_stop()
> >> returns. In that case, phylink_resolve() will call the mac_link_down()
> >> method if the link is not already down. It will also print the "Link
> >> is Down" message.
> >>
> >> Florian has already tested this patch after encountering a similar
> >> issue, and has reported that it solves the problem for him. I've also
> >> tested it with mvneta, and the original mvpp2x driver on Macchiatobin.
> >>
> >> Maybe there's something different about mvpp2, but as I have no
> >> visibility of that driver and the modifications therein, I can't
> >> comment further other than stating that it works for three different
> >> implementations.
> >>
> >> Maybe you could try and work out what's going on with the p21 patch
> >> in your case?
> >
> > I think I now realise what's probably going on.
> >
> > If you call netif_carrier_off() before phylink_stop(), then phylink will
> > believe that the link is already down, and so it won't bother calling
> > mac_link_down() - it will believe that the link is already down.
> >
> > I'll update the documentation for phylink_stop() to spell out this
> > aspect.
> >
>
> There are pretty high number of net drivers which do call
> netif_carrier_off(dev);
> before
> phy_stop(dev->phydev);
> in .ndo_stop() callback.
>
> As per you comment this seems to be incorrect, so should such calls be
> removed?
Well, I think the question that needs to be asked is this:
Is calling netif_carrier_off() before phy_stop() safe?
Well, reading the phylib code, this is the answer I've come to:
Between phy_start() and phy_stop(), phylib is free to manage the
carrier state itself through the phylib state machine.
This means if you call netif_carrier_off() prior to phy_stop(),
there is nothing preventing the phylib state machine from running,
and a co-incident poll of the PHY could notice that the link has
come up, and re-enable the carrier while your ndo_stop() method
is still running.
So, my conclusion is that this practice is provably racy, though
it's probably not that easy to trigger the race (which is probably
why no one has reported the problem.)
Given that it's racy, it's not something that I think phylink should
care about, and should "softly" discourage it. So, I'm happy with
what phylink is doing here, and I suggest fixing the drivers for
this race.
In any case, it should result in less code in the drivers - since
the work you need to do when the link goes down is a subset of the
work you need to do when the network interface is taken down.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up
On 12/01/2017 09:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 11:07:22AM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> Hi Russell,
>>
>> On 11/30/2017 07:28 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:10:18AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 08:51:21AM +0000, Yan Markman wrote:
>>>>> The phylink_stop is called before phylink_disconnect_phy
>>>>> You could see in mvpp2.c:
>>>>>
>>>>> mvpp2_stop_dev() {
>>>>> phylink_stop(port->phylink);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> mvpp2_stop() {
>>>>> mvpp2_stop_dev(port);
>>>>> phylink_disconnect_phy(port->phylink);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> .ndo_stop = mvpp2_stop,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I don't have this in mvpp2.c, so I have no visibility of what
>>>> you're working with.
>>>>
>>>> What you have above looks correct, and I see no reason why the p21
>>>> patch would not have resolved your issue. The p21 patch ensures
>>>> that phylink_resolve() gets called and completes before phylink_stop()
>>>> returns. In that case, phylink_resolve() will call the mac_link_down()
>>>> method if the link is not already down. It will also print the "Link
>>>> is Down" message.
>>>>
>>>> Florian has already tested this patch after encountering a similar
>>>> issue, and has reported that it solves the problem for him. I've also
>>>> tested it with mvneta, and the original mvpp2x driver on Macchiatobin.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe there's something different about mvpp2, but as I have no
>>>> visibility of that driver and the modifications therein, I can't
>>>> comment further other than stating that it works for three different
>>>> implementations.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you could try and work out what's going on with the p21 patch
>>>> in your case?
>>>
>>> I think I now realise what's probably going on.
>>>
>>> If you call netif_carrier_off() before phylink_stop(), then phylink will
>>> believe that the link is already down, and so it won't bother calling
>>> mac_link_down() - it will believe that the link is already down.
>>>
>>> I'll update the documentation for phylink_stop() to spell out this
>>> aspect.
>>>
>>
>> There are pretty high number of net drivers which do call
>> netif_carrier_off(dev);
>> before
>> phy_stop(dev->phydev);
>> in .ndo_stop() callback.
>>
>> As per you comment this seems to be incorrect, so should such calls be
>> removed?
>
> Well, I think the question that needs to be asked is this:
>
> Is calling netif_carrier_off() before phy_stop() safe?
>
> Well, reading the phylib code, this is the answer I've come to:
>
> Between phy_start() and phy_stop(), phylib is free to manage the
> carrier state itself through the phylib state machine.
>
> This means if you call netif_carrier_off() prior to phy_stop(),
> there is nothing preventing the phylib state machine from running,
> and a co-incident poll of the PHY could notice that the link has
> come up, and re-enable the carrier while your ndo_stop() method
> is still running.
>
> So, my conclusion is that this practice is provably racy, though
> it's probably not that easy to trigger the race (which is probably
> why no one has reported the problem.)
>
> Given that it's racy, it's not something that I think phylink should
> care about, and should "softly" discourage it. So, I'm happy with
> what phylink is doing here, and I suggest fixing the drivers for
> this race.
>
> In any case, it should result in less code in the drivers - since
> the work you need to do when the link goes down is a subset of the
> work you need to do when the network interface is taken down.
>
While I agree with all of what written before, in practice, calling
netif_carrier_off() when using PHYLIB can cause inconsistent carrier
states at most, but it would not be messing the state machine itself
because PHYLIB does not make uses of netif_carrier_ok() to make any
decisions as whether the link has dropped or not, it bases its
information solely on phydev->link.
This is not true with PHYLINK, which is why the problem was observed here.
--
Florian
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 09:36:42AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 12/01/2017 09:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 11:07:22AM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> >> Hi Russell,
> >>
> >> On 11/30/2017 07:28 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:10:18AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 08:51:21AM +0000, Yan Markman wrote:
> >>>>> The phylink_stop is called before phylink_disconnect_phy
> >>>>> You could see in mvpp2.c:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> mvpp2_stop_dev() {
> >>>>> phylink_stop(port->phylink);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> mvpp2_stop() {
> >>>>> mvpp2_stop_dev(port);
> >>>>> phylink_disconnect_phy(port->phylink);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .ndo_stop = mvpp2_stop,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I don't have this in mvpp2.c, so I have no visibility of what
> >>>> you're working with.
> >>>>
> >>>> What you have above looks correct, and I see no reason why the p21
> >>>> patch would not have resolved your issue. The p21 patch ensures
> >>>> that phylink_resolve() gets called and completes before phylink_stop()
> >>>> returns. In that case, phylink_resolve() will call the mac_link_down()
> >>>> method if the link is not already down. It will also print the "Link
> >>>> is Down" message.
> >>>>
> >>>> Florian has already tested this patch after encountering a similar
> >>>> issue, and has reported that it solves the problem for him. I've also
> >>>> tested it with mvneta, and the original mvpp2x driver on Macchiatobin.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe there's something different about mvpp2, but as I have no
> >>>> visibility of that driver and the modifications therein, I can't
> >>>> comment further other than stating that it works for three different
> >>>> implementations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe you could try and work out what's going on with the p21 patch
> >>>> in your case?
> >>>
> >>> I think I now realise what's probably going on.
> >>>
> >>> If you call netif_carrier_off() before phylink_stop(), then phylink will
> >>> believe that the link is already down, and so it won't bother calling
> >>> mac_link_down() - it will believe that the link is already down.
> >>>
> >>> I'll update the documentation for phylink_stop() to spell out this
> >>> aspect.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There are pretty high number of net drivers which do call
> >> netif_carrier_off(dev);
> >> before
> >> phy_stop(dev->phydev);
> >> in .ndo_stop() callback.
> >>
> >> As per you comment this seems to be incorrect, so should such calls be
> >> removed?
> >
> > Well, I think the question that needs to be asked is this:
> >
> > Is calling netif_carrier_off() before phy_stop() safe?
> >
> > Well, reading the phylib code, this is the answer I've come to:
> >
> > Between phy_start() and phy_stop(), phylib is free to manage the
> > carrier state itself through the phylib state machine.
> >
> > This means if you call netif_carrier_off() prior to phy_stop(),
> > there is nothing preventing the phylib state machine from running,
> > and a co-incident poll of the PHY could notice that the link has
> > come up, and re-enable the carrier while your ndo_stop() method
> > is still running.
> >
> > So, my conclusion is that this practice is provably racy, though
> > it's probably not that easy to trigger the race (which is probably
> > why no one has reported the problem.)
> >
> > Given that it's racy, it's not something that I think phylink should
> > care about, and should "softly" discourage it. So, I'm happy with
> > what phylink is doing here, and I suggest fixing the drivers for
> > this race.
> >
> > In any case, it should result in less code in the drivers - since
> > the work you need to do when the link goes down is a subset of the
> > work you need to do when the network interface is taken down.
> >
>
> While I agree with all of what written before, in practice, calling
> netif_carrier_off() when using PHYLIB can cause inconsistent carrier
> states at most, but it would not be messing the state machine itself
> because PHYLIB does not make uses of netif_carrier_ok() to make any
> decisions as whether the link has dropped or not, it bases its
> information solely on phydev->link.
Indeed, but the point I'm making is that this sequence is very
possible with drivers that mess about by fiddling with stuff
before they call phy_stop():
CPU0 CPU1
netif_carrier_off()
mvpp2_egress_disable()
phy_state_machine()
(phydev->state = PHY_AN)
phy_link_up()
phy_link_change()
netif_carrier_on()
mvpp2_link_event()
mvpp2_egress_enable()
mvpp2_ingress_enable()
mvpp2_port_disable()
phy_stop(ndev->phydev)
At this point, egress has not been disabled as mvpp2_stop_dev() wants,
because the phylib state machine got in before it was stopped, called
the adjust link function which then had the effect of re-enabling the
egress.
If that doesn't matter, then what's the point of the
mvpp2_egress_disable() call in the mvpp2_stop_dev() path... either
it matters and the mvpp2_stop_dev() sequence is broken, or it doesn't
matter and some the work that mvpp2_stop_dev() is doing is unnecessary.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up
Hi Russel
The Grygorii has raised one Additional point (about netif_carrier_off) I just didn't want to start before finishing the previous one.
On ifconfig-down the mac_config() called but with LINK=0.
The config has no any knowledge what is intention -- up or down and should be done under disabled ingress/egress,
and so the mac_config one of its action is netif_carrier_off.
After calling mac_config() the phylink checks if (!link && !netif_carrier_ok()) and decides to abort further down since all-done...
REMOVE netif_carrier_off looks like correct BUT has cases where de driver stops to works properly (sorry, I can't remember now what exactly).
So finally I have placed there the CONDITIONAL carrier-off depending upon link:
static void mvpp2_mac_config(){
if (state->link) --- occasionally is TRUE on UP but FALSE on down
netif_carrier_off(port->dev);//YANM
BTW: It's seems your below patch should be present anyway.
+++ b/drivers/net/phy/phylink.c
@@ -798,6 +798,7 @@ void phylink_disconnect_phy(struct phylink *pl)
+ pl->phy_state.link = false;
Thank you
Best regards
Yan Markman
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 7:48 PM
To: Florian Fainelli <[email protected]>
Cc: Grygorii Strashko <[email protected]>; Yan Markman <[email protected]>; Antoine Tenart <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nadav Haklai <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Stefan Chulski <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net] net: phylink: fix link state on phy-connect
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 09:36:42AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 12/01/2017 09:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 11:07:22AM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> >> Hi Russell,
> >>
> >> On 11/30/2017 07:28 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:10:18AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 08:51:21AM +0000, Yan Markman wrote:
> >>>>> The phylink_stop is called before phylink_disconnect_phy You
> >>>>> could see in mvpp2.c:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> mvpp2_stop_dev() {
> >>>>> phylink_stop(port->phylink);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> mvpp2_stop() {
> >>>>> mvpp2_stop_dev(port);
> >>>>> phylink_disconnect_phy(port->phylink);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .ndo_stop = mvpp2_stop,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I don't have this in mvpp2.c, so I have no visibility of
> >>>> what you're working with.
> >>>>
> >>>> What you have above looks correct, and I see no reason why the
> >>>> p21 patch would not have resolved your issue. The p21 patch
> >>>> ensures that phylink_resolve() gets called and completes before
> >>>> phylink_stop() returns. In that case, phylink_resolve() will
> >>>> call the mac_link_down() method if the link is not already down.
> >>>> It will also print the "Link is Down" message.
> >>>>
> >>>> Florian has already tested this patch after encountering a
> >>>> similar issue, and has reported that it solves the problem for
> >>>> him. I've also tested it with mvneta, and the original mvpp2x driver on Macchiatobin.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe there's something different about mvpp2, but as I have no
> >>>> visibility of that driver and the modifications therein, I can't
> >>>> comment further other than stating that it works for three
> >>>> different implementations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe you could try and work out what's going on with the p21
> >>>> patch in your case?
> >>>
> >>> I think I now realise what's probably going on.
> >>>
> >>> If you call netif_carrier_off() before phylink_stop(), then
> >>> phylink will believe that the link is already down, and so it
> >>> won't bother calling
> >>> mac_link_down() - it will believe that the link is already down.
> >>>
> >>> I'll update the documentation for phylink_stop() to spell out this
> >>> aspect.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There are pretty high number of net drivers which do call
> >> netif_carrier_off(dev);
> >> before
> >> phy_stop(dev->phydev);
> >> in .ndo_stop() callback.
> >>
> >> As per you comment this seems to be incorrect, so should such calls
> >> be removed?
> >
> > Well, I think the question that needs to be asked is this:
> >
> > Is calling netif_carrier_off() before phy_stop() safe?
> >
> > Well, reading the phylib code, this is the answer I've come to:
> >
> > Between phy_start() and phy_stop(), phylib is free to manage the
> > carrier state itself through the phylib state machine.
> >
> > This means if you call netif_carrier_off() prior to phy_stop(),
> > there is nothing preventing the phylib state machine from running,
> > and a co-incident poll of the PHY could notice that the link has
> > come up, and re-enable the carrier while your ndo_stop() method
> > is still running.
> >
> > So, my conclusion is that this practice is provably racy, though
> > it's probably not that easy to trigger the race (which is probably
> > why no one has reported the problem.)
> >
> > Given that it's racy, it's not something that I think phylink should
> > care about, and should "softly" discourage it. So, I'm happy with
> > what phylink is doing here, and I suggest fixing the drivers for
> > this race.
> >
> > In any case, it should result in less code in the drivers - since
> > the work you need to do when the link goes down is a subset of the
> > work you need to do when the network interface is taken down.
> >
>
> While I agree with all of what written before, in practice, calling
> netif_carrier_off() when using PHYLIB can cause inconsistent carrier
> states at most, but it would not be messing the state machine itself
> because PHYLIB does not make uses of netif_carrier_ok() to make any
> decisions as whether the link has dropped or not, it bases its
> information solely on phydev->link.
Indeed, but the point I'm making is that this sequence is very possible with drivers that mess about by fiddling with stuff before they call phy_stop():
CPU0 CPU1
netif_carrier_off()
mvpp2_egress_disable()
phy_state_machine()
(phydev->state = PHY_AN)
phy_link_up()
phy_link_change()
netif_carrier_on()
mvpp2_link_event()
mvpp2_egress_enable()
mvpp2_ingress_enable()
mvpp2_port_disable()
phy_stop(ndev->phydev)
At this point, egress has not been disabled as mvpp2_stop_dev() wants, because the phylib state machine got in before it was stopped, called the adjust link function which then had the effect of re-enabling the egress.
If that doesn't matter, then what's the point of the
mvpp2_egress_disable() call in the mvpp2_stop_dev() path... either it matters and the mvpp2_stop_dev() sequence is broken, or it doesn't matter and some the work that mvpp2_stop_dev() is doing is unnecessary.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 11:08:45AM +0000, Yan Markman wrote:
> Hi Russel
>
> The Grygorii has raised one Additional point (about netif_carrier_off)
> I just didn't want to start before finishing the previous one.
>
> On ifconfig-down the mac_config() called but with LINK=0.
> The config has no any knowledge what is intention -- up or down and
> should be done under disabled ingress/egress, and so the mac_config
> one of its action is netif_carrier_off.
With the "p21" patch applied, which is now queued for 4.15-rc by davem,
the behaviour of phylink when phylink_stop() is called becomes entirely
predictable.
When phylink_stop() has been called, provided the carrier state is left
alone, it is guaranteed that mac_link_down() will be called if the link
was originally up, and this will complete prior to phylink_stop()
returning.
After that call has been made, and provided no further calls from the
MAC driver to phylink are made, phylink will make no further calls
to the MAC driver via mac_config(), mac_link_up() or mac_link_down().
It will only resume making these calls once phylink_start() is called.
phylink_start() will cause mac_config() to be called for the current
link mode. A resolve of the current state is then triggered, which
may trigger further mac_config() calls to be made. If the link is
then deemed to be up, a call to mac_link_up() will be made.
> After calling mac_config() the phylink checks
> if (!link && !netif_carrier_ok())
> and decides to abort further down since all-done...
phylink does not contain any such if () statement, so I'm not sure
what code you are referring to.
> REMOVE netif_carrier_off looks like correct BUT has cases where de driver stops to works properly (sorry, I can't remember now what exactly).
> So finally I have placed there the CONDITIONAL carrier-off depending upon link:
>
> static void mvpp2_mac_config(){
> if (state->link) --- occasionally is TRUE on UP but FALSE on down
> netif_carrier_off(port->dev);//YANM
You should not be changing the carrier state in your mac_config()
function, because, again, just like having netif_carrier_off() before
phylink_stop(), it will mess phylink's tracking of the current state
and will cause the mac_link_*() functions to be called erratically.
> BTW: It's seems your below patch should be present anyway.
> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phylink.c
> @@ -798,6 +798,7 @@ void phylink_disconnect_phy(struct phylink *pl)
> + pl->phy_state.link = false;
Here's an example without the above on Macchiatobin of a up -> down -> up
sequence on the gigabit wired ethernet port on this board (which I have
bound to a Linux bridge device). The exact command used for this was:
# ifconfig eth2 down; sleep 2; ifconfig eth2 up
[66926.127009] mvpp2x f4000000.ppv22 eth2: Link is Down
[66926.131557] br0: port 1(eth2) entered disabled state
[66928.144845] mvpp2x f4000000.ppv22 eth2: configuring for inband/sgmii link mode
[66928.144853] mvpp2x f4000000.ppv22 eth2: reconfig: pm 4->4 cm 201->201 f 2->2
[66928.154937] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth2: link is not ready
[66929.783866] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): br0: link is not ready
[66929.979499] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): br0: link is not ready
[66931.213407] mvpp2x f4000000.ppv22 eth2: reconfig: pm 4->4 cm 201->201 f a->a
[66931.213424] mvpp2x f4000000.ppv22 eth2: Link is Up - 1Gbps/Full - flow control off
[66931.213433] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth2: link becomes ready
[66931.213682] br0: port 1(eth2) entered blocking state
[66931.213685] br0: port 1(eth2) entered forwarding state
[66931.213920] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): br0: link becomes ready
This is with the "p21" patch applied, and mvpp2x_the netif_carrier_off()
before phylink_stop() in mvpp2x removed. Basically:
void mv_pp2x_stop_dev(struct mv_pp2x_port *port)
{
struct gop_hw *gop = &port->priv->hw.gop;
struct mv_mac_data *mac = &port->mac_data;
if (port->mac_data.phylink) {
phylink_stop(port->mac_data.phylink);
/* Disable interrupts on all CPUs */
mv_pp2x_port_interrupts_disable(port);
mv_pp2x_port_napi_disable(port);
netif_tx_stop_all_queues(port->dev);
} else {
/* Stop new packets from arriving to RXQs */
mv_pp2x_ingress_disable(port);
mdelay(10);
/* Disable interrupts on all CPUs */
mv_pp2x_port_interrupts_disable(port);
mv_pp2x_port_napi_disable(port);
netif_carrier_off(port->dev);
netif_tx_stop_all_queues(port->dev);
mv_pp2x_egress_disable(port);
}
if (port->comphy)
phy_power_off(port->comphy);
if (port->priv->pp2_version == PPV21) {
mv_pp21_port_disable(port);
} else {
mv_gop110_port_events_mask(gop, mac);
mv_gop110_port_disable(gop, mac);
port->mac_data.flags &= ~MV_EMAC_F_LINK_UP;
port->mac_data.flags &= ~MV_EMAC_F_PORT_UP;
}
if (!port->mac_data.phylink) {
if (port->mac_data.phy_dev)
phy_stop(port->mac_data.phy_dev);
else
tasklet_kill(&port->link_change_tasklet);
}
}
with the mac_link_down() being:
static void mv_pp22_mac_link_down(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int mode)
{
struct mv_pp2x_port *port = netdev_priv(dev);
port->mac_data.link = 0;
mv_pp2x_ingress_disable(port);
mv_pp2x_egress_disable(port);
port->mac_data.flags &= ~MV_EMAC_F_LINK_UP;
}
The phylink case is the same, but with the ingress/egress disable in
a slightly different position - as it would be if the interface were
taken down without the link being up.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up