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;
Message-ID: <d36ba731c063b3ddace873926cc773426c55ca4a.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Increase wait after reset
 deactivation
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To:     Andreas Svensson <andreas.svensson@axis.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, kernel@axis.com,
        Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 01 Jun 2023 12:32:19 +0200
In-Reply-To: <f89e203a-af77-9661-1003-0e9370ff6fab@axis.com>
References: <20230530145223.1223993-1-andreas.svensson@axis.com>
         <be44dfe3-b4cb-4fd5-b4bd-23eec4bd401c@lunn.ch>
         <f89e203a-af77-9661-1003-0e9370ff6fab@axis.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 (3.46.4-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2023-06-01 at 11:10 +0200, Andreas Svensson wrote:
> On 5/30/23 19:28, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 04:52:23PM +0200, Andreas Svensson wrote:
> > > A switch held in reset by default needs to wait longer until we can
> > > reliably detect it.
> > >=20
> > > An issue was observed when testing on the Marvell 88E6393X (Link Stre=
et).
> > > The driver failed to detect the switch on some upstarts. Increasing t=
he
> > > wait time after reset deactivation solves this issue.
> > >=20
> > > The updated wait time is now also the same as the wait time in the
> > > mv88e6xxx_hardware_reset function.
> >=20
> > Do you have an EEPROM attached and content in it?
>=20
> There's no EEPROM attached to the switch in our design.
>=20
> >=20
> > It is not necessarily the reset itself which is the problem, but how
> > long it takes after the reset to read the contents of the
> > EEPROM. While it is doing that, is does not respond on the MDIO
> > bus. Which is why mv88e6xxx_hardware_reset() polls for that to
> > complete.
>=20
> Ok, yes that makes sense. I could add the mv88e6xxx_g1_wait_eeprom_done
> function after the reset deactivation.
>=20
> >=20
> > I know there are some users who want the switch to boot as fast as
> > possible, and don't really want the additional 9ms delay. But this is
> > also a legitimate change. I'm just wondering if we need to consider a
> > DT property here for those with EEPROM content. Or, if there is an
> > interrupt line, wait for the EEPROM complete interrupt. We just have
> > tricky chicken and egg problems. At this point in time, we don't
> > actually know if the devices exists or not.
> >=20
> > 	  Andrew
>=20
> It just seems like we need to wait longer for the switch 88E6393X
> until it responds reliably on the MDIO bus. But I'm open to adding
> a new DT property if that's needed.
>=20
> The datasheet for 88E6393X also states that it needs at least 10ms
> before it's ready. But I suppose this varies from switch to switch.

I read the above as a new version of this fix is coming, thus not
applying this patch.

Thanks,

Paolo