| Message ID | E1m5mVT-00032g-Km@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net-next] net: dpaa2-mac: add support for more ethtool 10G link modes | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/cover_letter | success | Link |
| netdev/fixes_present | success | Link |
| netdev/patch_count | success | Link |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Clearly marked for net-next |
| netdev/subject_prefix | success | Link |
| netdev/cc_maintainers | warning | 1 maintainers not CCed: linux@armlinux.org.uk |
| netdev/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/verify_signedoff | success | Link |
| netdev/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/build_32bit | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/verify_fixes | success | Link |
| netdev/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 11 lines checked |
| netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/header_inline | success | Link |
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:57:43AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > Phylink documentation says: > Note that the PHY may be able to transform from one connection > technology to another, so, eg, don't clear 1000BaseX just > because the MAC is unable to BaseX mode. This is more about > clearing unsupported speeds and duplex settings. The port modes > should not be cleared; phylink_set_port_modes() will help with this. > > So add the missing 10G modes. Hi Russell Would a phylink_set_10g(mask) helper make sense? As you say, it is about the speed, not the individual modes. Andrew
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:51:35PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:57:43AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > Phylink documentation says: > > Note that the PHY may be able to transform from one connection > > technology to another, so, eg, don't clear 1000BaseX just > > because the MAC is unable to BaseX mode. This is more about > > clearing unsupported speeds and duplex settings. The port modes > > should not be cleared; phylink_set_port_modes() will help with this. > > > > So add the missing 10G modes. > > Hi Russell > > Would a phylink_set_10g(mask) helper make sense? As you say, it is > about the speed, not the individual modes. Yes, good point, and that will probably help avoid this in the future. We can't do that for things like e.g. SGMII though, because 1000/half isn't universally supported. Shall we get this patch merged anyway and then clean it up - as such a change will need to cover multiple drivers anyway?
> Shall we get this patch merged anyway and then clean it up - as such > a change will need to cover multiple drivers anyway? Yes, do it as a cleanup later. Andrew
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:57:43AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > Phylink documentation says: > Note that the PHY may be able to transform from one connection > technology to another, so, eg, don't clear 1000BaseX just > because the MAC is unable to BaseX mode. This is more about > clearing unsupported speeds and duplex settings. The port modes > should not be cleared; phylink_set_port_modes() will help with this. > > So add the missing 10G modes. > > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> > Acked-by: Marek Behún <kabel@kernel.org> > Acked-by: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@nxp.com> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> Andrew
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:11:34PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:51:35PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:57:43AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > > Phylink documentation says: > > > Note that the PHY may be able to transform from one connection > > > technology to another, so, eg, don't clear 1000BaseX just > > > because the MAC is unable to BaseX mode. This is more about > > > clearing unsupported speeds and duplex settings. The port modes > > > should not be cleared; phylink_set_port_modes() will help with this. > > > > > > So add the missing 10G modes. > > > > Hi Russell > > > > Would a phylink_set_10g(mask) helper make sense? As you say, it is > > about the speed, not the individual modes. > > Yes, good point, and that will probably help avoid this in the future. > We can't do that for things like e.g. SGMII though, because 1000/half > isn't universally supported. > > Shall we get this patch merged anyway and then clean it up - as such > a change will need to cover multiple drivers anyway? > This didn't get merged unfortunately. Could you please resend it? Alternatively, I can take a look into adding that phylink_set_10g() helper if that is what's keeping it from being merged. Ioana
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 05:47:52PM +0300, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:11:34PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:51:35PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:57:43AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > > > Phylink documentation says: > > > > Note that the PHY may be able to transform from one connection > > > > technology to another, so, eg, don't clear 1000BaseX just > > > > because the MAC is unable to BaseX mode. This is more about > > > > clearing unsupported speeds and duplex settings. The port modes > > > > should not be cleared; phylink_set_port_modes() will help with this. > > > > > > > > So add the missing 10G modes. > > > > > > Hi Russell > > > > > > Would a phylink_set_10g(mask) helper make sense? As you say, it is > > > about the speed, not the individual modes. > > > > Yes, good point, and that will probably help avoid this in the future. > > We can't do that for things like e.g. SGMII though, because 1000/half > > isn't universally supported. > > > > Shall we get this patch merged anyway and then clean it up - as such > > a change will need to cover multiple drivers anyway? > > > > This didn't get merged unfortunately. > > Could you please resend it? Alternatively, I can take a look into adding > that phylink_set_10g() helper if that is what's keeping it from being > merged. It looks like the original patch didn't appear in patchwork for some reason - at least google can find it in lore's netdev archives, but not in patchwork. I can only put this down to some kernel.org unreliability - we've seen this unreliability in the past with netdev, and it seems to be an ongoing issue. It's now too late to re-send for this merge window - net-next is currently closed. Whether I remember in a fortnight or so time when net-next re-opens is another problem. And yes, I also have the phylink_set_10g() patches in my tree, which was waiting for this patch to have been merged.
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 11:33:58AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 05:47:52PM +0300, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:11:34PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:51:35PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:57:43AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > > > > Phylink documentation says: > > > > > Note that the PHY may be able to transform from one connection > > > > > technology to another, so, eg, don't clear 1000BaseX just > > > > > because the MAC is unable to BaseX mode. This is more about > > > > > clearing unsupported speeds and duplex settings. The port modes > > > > > should not be cleared; phylink_set_port_modes() will help with this. > > > > > > > > > > So add the missing 10G modes. > > > > > > > > Hi Russell > > > > > > > > Would a phylink_set_10g(mask) helper make sense? As you say, it is > > > > about the speed, not the individual modes. > > > > > > Yes, good point, and that will probably help avoid this in the future. > > > We can't do that for things like e.g. SGMII though, because 1000/half > > > isn't universally supported. > > > > > > Shall we get this patch merged anyway and then clean it up - as such > > > a change will need to cover multiple drivers anyway? > > > > > > > This didn't get merged unfortunately. > > > > Could you please resend it? Alternatively, I can take a look into adding > > that phylink_set_10g() helper if that is what's keeping it from being > > merged. > > It looks like the original patch didn't appear in patchwork for some > reason - at least google can find it in lore's netdev archives, but > not in patchwork. I can only put this down to some kernel.org > unreliability - we've seen this unreliability in the past with netdev, > and it seems to be an ongoing issue. > Yes, it cannot be found though google but the patch appears in patchwork, it was tagged with 'Changes requested'. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/E1m5mVT-00032g-Km@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk/ > It's now too late to re-send for this merge window - net-next is > currently closed. Whether I remember in a fortnight or so time when > net-next re-opens is another problem. > > And yes, I also have the phylink_set_10g() patches in my tree, which > was waiting for this patch to have been merged. > Ok, thanks! Ioana
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 02:09:16PM +0300, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 11:33:58AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 05:47:52PM +0300, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:11:34PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:51:35PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:57:43AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > > > > > Phylink documentation says: > > > > > > Note that the PHY may be able to transform from one connection > > > > > > technology to another, so, eg, don't clear 1000BaseX just > > > > > > because the MAC is unable to BaseX mode. This is more about > > > > > > clearing unsupported speeds and duplex settings. The port modes > > > > > > should not be cleared; phylink_set_port_modes() will help with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > So add the missing 10G modes. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Russell > > > > > > > > > > Would a phylink_set_10g(mask) helper make sense? As you say, it is > > > > > about the speed, not the individual modes. > > > > > > > > Yes, good point, and that will probably help avoid this in the future. > > > > We can't do that for things like e.g. SGMII though, because 1000/half > > > > isn't universally supported. > > > > > > > > Shall we get this patch merged anyway and then clean it up - as such > > > > a change will need to cover multiple drivers anyway? > > > > > > > > > > This didn't get merged unfortunately. > > > > > > Could you please resend it? Alternatively, I can take a look into adding > > > that phylink_set_10g() helper if that is what's keeping it from being > > > merged. > > > > It looks like the original patch didn't appear in patchwork for some > > reason - at least google can find it in lore's netdev archives, but > > not in patchwork. I can only put this down to some kernel.org > > unreliability - we've seen this unreliability in the past with netdev, > > and it seems to be an ongoing issue. > > > > Yes, it cannot be found though google but the patch appears in > patchwork, it was tagged with 'Changes requested'. > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/E1m5mVT-00032g-Km@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk/ Thanks. I wonder why searching for it via google and also via patchworks search facility didn't find it. So, it got incorrectly tagged by netdev maintainers, presumably because they're too quick to classify a patch while discussion on the patch was still ongoing - and there's no way for those discussing that to ever know without finding it in patchwork. Which is pretty much impossible unless you know the patchwork URL format and message ID, and are prepared to regularly poll the patchwork website. The netdev process, as a patch submitter or reviewer, is really very unfriendly.
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 12:34:34PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 02:09:16PM +0300, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 11:33:58AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 05:47:52PM +0300, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:11:34PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:51:35PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:57:43AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > > > > > > Phylink documentation says: > > > > > > > Note that the PHY may be able to transform from one connection > > > > > > > technology to another, so, eg, don't clear 1000BaseX just > > > > > > > because the MAC is unable to BaseX mode. This is more about > > > > > > > clearing unsupported speeds and duplex settings. The port modes > > > > > > > should not be cleared; phylink_set_port_modes() will help with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So add the missing 10G modes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Russell > > > > > > > > > > > > Would a phylink_set_10g(mask) helper make sense? As you say, it is > > > > > > about the speed, not the individual modes. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, good point, and that will probably help avoid this in the future. > > > > > We can't do that for things like e.g. SGMII though, because 1000/half > > > > > isn't universally supported. > > > > > > > > > > Shall we get this patch merged anyway and then clean it up - as such > > > > > a change will need to cover multiple drivers anyway? > > > > > > > > > > > > > This didn't get merged unfortunately. > > > > > > > > Could you please resend it? Alternatively, I can take a look into adding > > > > that phylink_set_10g() helper if that is what's keeping it from being > > > > merged. > > > > > > It looks like the original patch didn't appear in patchwork for some > > > reason - at least google can find it in lore's netdev archives, but > > > not in patchwork. I can only put this down to some kernel.org > > > unreliability - we've seen this unreliability in the past with netdev, > > > and it seems to be an ongoing issue. > > > > > > > Yes, it cannot be found though google but the patch appears in > > patchwork, it was tagged with 'Changes requested'. > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/E1m5mVT-00032g-Km@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk/ > > Thanks. I wonder why searching for it via google and also via patchworks > search facility didn't find it. > > So, it got incorrectly tagged by netdev maintainers, presumably because > they're too quick to classify a patch while discussion on the patch was > still ongoing - and there's no way for those discussing that to ever > know without finding it in patchwork. Which is pretty much impossible > unless you know the patchwork URL format and message ID, and are > prepared to regularly poll the patchwork website. > > The netdev process, as a patch submitter or reviewer, is really very > unfriendly. H Russell, Ioana It sounds like at LPC there is going to be a time slot to talk about netdev processes. I would like to find out and discuss the new policy for the time it takes to merge patches. Patchwork issues, and the lack of integration with email workflows could be another interesting topic to discuss. Andrew
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 03:11:36PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > Thanks. I wonder why searching for it via google and also via patchworks > > search facility didn't find it. > > > > So, it got incorrectly tagged by netdev maintainers, presumably because > > they're too quick to classify a patch while discussion on the patch was > > still ongoing - and there's no way for those discussing that to ever > > know without finding it in patchwork. Which is pretty much impossible > > unless you know the patchwork URL format and message ID, and are > > prepared to regularly poll the patchwork website. > > > > The netdev process, as a patch submitter or reviewer, is really very > > unfriendly. > > H Russell, Ioana > > It sounds like at LPC there is going to be a time slot to talk about > netdev processes. Is this on the Networking track? I didn't find any session that would appear to target this topic. > I would like to find out and discuss the new policy > for the time it takes to merge patches. Patchwork issues, and the lack > of integration with email workflows could be another interesting topic > to discuss. It would be interesting to have patchwork send a notification of some sorts to the submitter when a certain patch set's state was changed. Ioana
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa2/dpaa2-mac.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa2/dpaa2-mac.c index ae6d382d8735..543c1f202420 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa2/dpaa2-mac.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa2/dpaa2-mac.c @@ -140,6 +140,11 @@ static void dpaa2_mac_validate(struct phylink_config *config, case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_10GBASER: case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_USXGMII: phylink_set(mask, 10000baseT_Full); + phylink_set(mask, 10000baseCR_Full); + phylink_set(mask, 10000baseSR_Full); + phylink_set(mask, 10000baseLR_Full); + phylink_set(mask, 10000baseLRM_Full); + phylink_set(mask, 10000baseER_Full); if (state->interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_10GBASER) break; phylink_set(mask, 5000baseT_Full);