Ethernet controller in i.MX6*/i.MX7* series do not provide EEE support.
But this chips are used sometimes in combinations with SmartEEE capable
PHYs.
So, instead of aborting get/set_eee access on MACs without EEE support,
ask PHY if it is able to do the EEE job by using SmartEEE.
Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c
index c73e25f8995e..00f3703db69d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c
@@ -3102,8 +3102,15 @@ fec_enet_get_eee(struct net_device *ndev, struct ethtool_eee *edata)
struct fec_enet_private *fep = netdev_priv(ndev);
struct ethtool_eee *p = &fep->eee;
- if (!(fep->quirks & FEC_QUIRK_HAS_EEE))
- return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ if (!(fep->quirks & FEC_QUIRK_HAS_EEE)) {
+ if (!netif_running(ndev))
+ return -ENETDOWN;
+
+ if (!phy_has_smarteee(ndev->phydev))
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
+ return phy_ethtool_get_eee(ndev->phydev, edata);
+ }
if (!netif_running(ndev))
return -ENETDOWN;
@@ -3123,8 +3130,15 @@ fec_enet_set_eee(struct net_device *ndev, struct ethtool_eee *edata)
struct ethtool_eee *p = &fep->eee;
int ret = 0;
- if (!(fep->quirks & FEC_QUIRK_HAS_EEE))
- return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ if (!(fep->quirks & FEC_QUIRK_HAS_EEE)) {
+ if (!netif_running(ndev))
+ return -ENETDOWN;
+
+ if (!phy_has_smarteee(ndev->phydev))
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
+ return phy_ethtool_set_eee(ndev->phydev, edata);
+ }
if (!netif_running(ndev))
return -ENETDOWN;
--
2.30.2
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:03:14AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> Ethernet controller in i.MX6*/i.MX7* series do not provide EEE support.
> But this chips are used sometimes in combinations with SmartEEE capable
> PHYs.
> So, instead of aborting get/set_eee access on MACs without EEE support,
> ask PHY if it is able to do the EEE job by using SmartEEE.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c
> index c73e25f8995e..00f3703db69d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c
> @@ -3102,8 +3102,15 @@ fec_enet_get_eee(struct net_device *ndev, struct ethtool_eee *edata)
> struct fec_enet_private *fep = netdev_priv(ndev);
> struct ethtool_eee *p = &fep->eee;
>
> - if (!(fep->quirks & FEC_QUIRK_HAS_EEE))
> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + if (!(fep->quirks & FEC_QUIRK_HAS_EEE)) {
> + if (!netif_running(ndev))
> + return -ENETDOWN;
> +
> + if (!phy_has_smarteee(ndev->phydev))
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> + return phy_ethtool_get_eee(ndev->phydev, edata);
> + }
I can see two different ways we do this. As you have here, we modify
every MAC driver which is paired to a SmartEEE PHY and have it call
into phylib. Or we modify the ethtool core, if it gets -EOPNOTSUPP,
and there is an ndev->phydev call directly into phylib. That should
make all boards with SmartEEE supported. We do this for a few calls,
TS Info, and SFP module info.
Either way, i don't think we need phy_has_smarteee() exposed outside
of phylib. SmartEEE is supposed to be transparent to the MAC, so it
should not need to care. Same as WOL, the MAC does not care if the PHY
supports WoL, it should just call the APIs to get and set WoL and
assume they do the right thing.
What is also unclear to me is how we negotiate between EEE and
SmartEEE. I assume if the MAC is EEE capable, we prefer that over
SmartEEE. But i don't think i've seen anything in these patches which
addresses this. Maybe we want phy_init_eee() to disable SmartEEE?
Andrew
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 02:26:36PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:03:14AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > Ethernet controller in i.MX6*/i.MX7* series do not provide EEE support.
> > But this chips are used sometimes in combinations with SmartEEE capable
> > PHYs.
> > So, instead of aborting get/set_eee access on MACs without EEE support,
> > ask PHY if it is able to do the EEE job by using SmartEEE.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c
> > index c73e25f8995e..00f3703db69d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c
> > @@ -3102,8 +3102,15 @@ fec_enet_get_eee(struct net_device *ndev, struct ethtool_eee *edata)
> > struct fec_enet_private *fep = netdev_priv(ndev);
> > struct ethtool_eee *p = &fep->eee;
> >
> > - if (!(fep->quirks & FEC_QUIRK_HAS_EEE))
> > - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + if (!(fep->quirks & FEC_QUIRK_HAS_EEE)) {
> > + if (!netif_running(ndev))
> > + return -ENETDOWN;
> > +
> > + if (!phy_has_smarteee(ndev->phydev))
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > + return phy_ethtool_get_eee(ndev->phydev, edata);
> > + }
>
> I can see two different ways we do this. As you have here, we modify
> every MAC driver which is paired to a SmartEEE PHY and have it call
> into phylib. Or we modify the ethtool core, if it gets -EOPNOTSUPP,
> and there is an ndev->phydev call directly into phylib. That should
> make all boards with SmartEEE supported. We do this for a few calls,
> TS Info, and SFP module info.
>
> Either way, i don't think we need phy_has_smarteee() exposed outside
> of phylib. SmartEEE is supposed to be transparent to the MAC, so it
> should not need to care. Same as WOL, the MAC does not care if the PHY
> supports WoL, it should just call the APIs to get and set WoL and
> assume they do the right thing.
>
> What is also unclear to me is how we negotiate between EEE and
> SmartEEE. I assume if the MAC is EEE capable, we prefer that over
> SmartEEE. But i don't think i've seen anything in these patches which
> addresses this. Maybe we want phy_init_eee() to disable SmartEEE?
>
> Andrew
I agree with the attitude that we shouldn't expect legacy MAC driver to handle
fancy features of PHY, so modifying core code instead of driver code would be a
much better solution.
Also, I too would like to see the case when both MAC EEE and SmartEEE are
enabled, to be prevented or acknowledged, if it's actually useful for something.
Other than that, patchset look fine to me, so in v2, you can put my Reviewed-By
(Larysa Zaremba <[email protected]>) under any of the previous patches
which stay unchanged (except the 4th one, you have to correct 'specifica'
in the title).
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 02:26:36PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:03:14AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> I can see two different ways we do this. As you have here, we modify
> every MAC driver which is paired to a SmartEEE PHY and have it call
> into phylib. Or we modify the ethtool core, if it gets -EOPNOTSUPP,
> and there is an ndev->phydev call directly into phylib. That should
> make all boards with SmartEEE supported. We do this for a few calls,
> TS Info, and SFP module info.
ACK. I'm working on this.
> Either way, i don't think we need phy_has_smarteee() exposed outside
> of phylib. SmartEEE is supposed to be transparent to the MAC, so it
> should not need to care. Same as WOL, the MAC does not care if the PHY
> supports WoL, it should just call the APIs to get and set WoL and
> assume they do the right thing.
>
> What is also unclear to me is how we negotiate between EEE and
> SmartEEE. I assume if the MAC is EEE capable, we prefer that over
> SmartEEE. But i don't think i've seen anything in these patches which
> addresses this. Maybe we want phy_init_eee() to disable SmartEEE?
>
> Andrew
>
I would prefer to not touch phy_init_eee(). At least not in this patch
set. With this function we have following situation:
drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c:2173:
This driver will enable EEE if link partners agreed to do so. But never
disable it, if link partner decided to turn off EEE or other link partner
without EEE support was attached.
drivers/net/dsa/mt7530.c:2862:
Seems to be ok.
drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/genet/bcmgenet.c:1353:
EEE is not enabled link up. It will work only with ethtool and only if
link was already active.
drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c:3078:
EEE is not enabled link up. It will work only with ethtool and only if
link was already active.
drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c:4225:
Seems to be ok.
drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan743x_ethtool.c:1115:
EEE is not enabled link up. It will work only with ethtool and only if
link was already active.
drivers/net/ethernet/samsung/sxgbe/sxgbe_main.c:130:
EEE will be enabled on open, but only if PHY was fast enough to detect
the link.
drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c:1084:
May partially work, by driver has many reason to not enable EEE, even if
PHY will continue to advertise it.
In all broken or partially broken cases, the PHY will continue to advertise
EEE support. And the link partner will even potentially try to make use of it.
No Idea if this works good.
Hm.. I need to admit, EEE should not be advertised by default. Only
if MAC driver calls something like phy_support_eee(), we should start doing it.
In case some Intel Ethernet drivers developer read this. There are some issue
too. For example:
net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_ethtool.c
igb_get_eee()
if (adapter->link_duplex == HALF_DUPLEX) {
edata->eee_enabled = false;
edata->eee_active = false;
edata->tx_lpi_enabled = false;
edata->advertised &= ~edata->advertised;
}
This part of code will make EEE permanently disabled if link partner switched
to HALF duplex and then back to full duplex.
It can be reproduce with following steps:
system B:
ethtool -s end0 advertise 0x008
system A:
ethtool --show-eee enp1s0f1
EEE status: enabled - active
system B:
ethtool -s end0 advertise 0x004
system A:
ethtool --show-eee enp1s0f1
EEE status: disabled
system B:
ethtool -s end0 advertise 0x008
ethtool --show-eee enp1s0f1
EEE status: disabled
drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_ethtool.c is affected as well.
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
> I would prefer to not touch phy_init_eee(). At least not in this patch
> set. With this function we have following situation:
We have a complete mess :-(
I spent yesterday re-writing the MAC driver side of EEE. Most get it
completely wrong, as you point out. So i changed the API a bit, making
it more like other negotiated things, so i hope developers will get it
correct in the future. I will post an RFC/RFT series soon.
> Hm.. I need to admit, EEE should not be advertised by default. Only
> if MAC driver calls something like phy_support_eee(), we should start doing it.
This i've not looked at yet. But i agree.
Andrew