Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 18 Jul 2022 17:06:25 +0100
From:   "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc:     Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@seco.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@nxp.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexandru Marginean <alexandru.marginean@nxp.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 08/47] net: phylink: Support differing link
 speeds and interface speeds
Message-ID: <YtWFAfu1nSE6vCfx@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
References: <20220715215954.1449214-1-sean.anderson@seco.com>
 <20220715215954.1449214-9-sean.anderson@seco.com>
 <YtMaKWZyC/lgAQ0i@lunn.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YtMaKWZyC/lgAQ0i@lunn.ch>
Sender: Russell King (Oracle) <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 10:06:01PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> This seem error prone when new PHY_INTERFACE_MODES are added. I would
> prefer a WARN_ON_ONCE() in the default: so we get to know about such
> problems.
> 
> I'm also wondering if we need a sanity check here. I've seen quite a
> few boards a Fast Ethernet MAC, but a 1G PHY because they are
> cheap. In such cases, the MAC is supposed to call phy_set_max_speed()
> to indicate it can only do 100Mbs. PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII but a
> link_speed of 1G is clearly wrong. Are there other cases where we
> could have a link speed faster than what the interface mode allows?

Currently, phylink will deal with that situation - the MAC will report
that it only supports 10/100, and when the PHY is brought up, the
supported/advertisement masks will be restricted to those speeds.

> Bike shedding a bit, but would it be better to use host_side_speed and
> line_side_speed? When you say link_speed, which link are your
> referring to? Since we are talking about the different sides of the
> PHY doing different speeds, the naming does need to be clear.

Yes, we definitely need that clarification.

I am rather worried that we have drivers using ->speed today in their
mac_config and we're redefining what that means in this patch. Also,
the value that we pass to the *_link_up() calls appears to be the
phy <-> (pcs|mac) speed not the media speed. It's also ->speed and
->duplex that we report to the user in the "Link is Up" message,
which will be confusing if it always says 10G despite the media link
being e.g. 100M.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!