| Message ID | 20190813191147.19936-5-mka@chromium.org |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: phy: Add support for DT configuration of PHY LEDs and use it for RTL8211E | expand |
> +static int rtl8211e_config_led(struct phy_device *phydev, int led, > + struct phy_led_config *cfg) > +{ > + u16 lacr_bits = 0, lcr_bits = 0; > + int oldpage, ret; > + You should probably check that led is 0 or 1. Otherwise this looks good. Andrew
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:14:11PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > +static int rtl8211e_config_led(struct phy_device *phydev, int led, > > + struct phy_led_config *cfg) > > +{ > > + u16 lacr_bits = 0, lcr_bits = 0; > > + int oldpage, ret; > > + > > You should probably check that led is 0 or 1. Actually this PHY has up to 3 LEDs, but yes, good point to validate the parameter. I'll wait a day or two for if there is other feedback and send a new version with the check. > Otherwise this looks good. Thanks for the reviews! Matthias
On Tue 2019-08-13 12:11:47, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > Add a .config_led hook which is called by the PHY core when > configuration data for a PHY LED is available. Each LED can be > configured to be solid 'off, solid 'on' for certain (or all) > link speeds or to blink on RX/TX activity. > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> THis really needs to go through the LED subsystem, and use the same userland interfaces as the rest of the system. Sorry. NAK. Pavel > --- > Changes in v6: > - return -EOPNOTSUPP if trigger is not supported, don't log warning > - don't log errors if MDIO ops fail, this is rare and the phy_device > will log a warning > - added parentheses around macro argument used in arithmetics to > avoid possible operator precedence issues > - minor formatting changes > > Changes in v5: > - use 'config_leds' driver callback instead of requesting the DT > configuration > - added support for trigger 'none' > - always disable EEE LED mode when a LED is configured. We have no > device data struct to keep track of its state, the number of LEDs > is limited, so the overhead of disabling it multiple times (once for > each LED that is configured) during initialization is negligible > - print warning when disabling EEE LED mode fails > - updated commit message (previous subject was 'net: phy: realtek: > configure RTL8211E LEDs') > > Changes in v4: > - use the generic PHY LED binding > - keep default/current configuration if none is specified > - added rtl8211e_disable_eee_led_mode() > - was previously in separate patch, however since we always want to > disable EEE LED mode when a LED configuration is specified it makes > sense to just add the function here. > - don't call phy_restore_page() in rtl8211e_config_leds() if > selection of the extended page failed. > - use phydev_warn() instead of phydev_err() if LED configuration > fails since we don't bail out > - use hex number to specify page for consistency > - add hex number to comment about ext page 44 to facilitate searching > > Changes in v3: > - sanity check led-modes values > - set LACR bits in a more readable way > - use phydev_err() instead of dev_err() > - log an error if LED configuration fails > > Changes in v2: > - patch added to the series > --- > drivers/net/phy/realtek.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/realtek.c b/drivers/net/phy/realtek.c > index a5b3708dc4d8..2bca3b91d43d 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/phy/realtek.c > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/realtek.c > @@ -9,8 +9,9 @@ > * Copyright (c) 2004 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. > */ > #include <linux/bitops.h> > -#include <linux/phy.h> > +#include <linux/bits.h> > #include <linux/module.h> > +#include <linux/phy.h> > > #define RTL821x_PHYSR 0x11 > #define RTL821x_PHYSR_DUPLEX BIT(13) > @@ -26,6 +27,19 @@ > #define RTL821x_EXT_PAGE_SELECT 0x1e > #define RTL821x_PAGE_SELECT 0x1f > > +/* RTL8211E page 5 */ > +#define RTL8211E_EEE_LED_MODE1 0x05 > +#define RTL8211E_EEE_LED_MODE2 0x06 > + > +/* RTL8211E extension page 44 (0x2c) */ > +#define RTL8211E_LACR 0x1a > +#define RLT8211E_LACR_LEDACTCTRL_SHIFT 4 > +#define RTL8211E_LCR 0x1c > + > +#define LACR_MASK(led) BIT(4 + (led)) > +#define LCR_MASK(led) GENMASK(((led) * 4) + 2,\ > + (led) * 4) > + > #define RTL8211F_INSR 0x1d > > #define RTL8211F_TX_DELAY BIT(8) > @@ -83,6 +97,79 @@ static int rtl8211x_modify_ext_paged(struct phy_device *phydev, int page, > return phy_restore_page(phydev, oldpage, ret); > } > > +static void rtl8211e_disable_eee_led_mode(struct phy_device *phydev) > +{ > + int oldpage; > + int err = 0; > + > + oldpage = phy_select_page(phydev, 5); > + if (oldpage < 0) > + goto out; > + > + /* write magic values to disable EEE LED mode */ > + err = __phy_write(phydev, RTL8211E_EEE_LED_MODE1, 0x8b82); > + if (err) > + goto out; > + > + err = __phy_write(phydev, RTL8211E_EEE_LED_MODE2, 0x052b); > + > +out: > + if (err) > + phydev_warn(phydev, "failed to disable EEE LED mode: %d\n", > + err); > + > + phy_restore_page(phydev, oldpage, err); > +} > + > +static int rtl8211e_config_led(struct phy_device *phydev, int led, > + struct phy_led_config *cfg) > +{ > + u16 lacr_bits = 0, lcr_bits = 0; > + int oldpage, ret; > + > + switch (cfg->trigger.t) { > + case PHY_LED_TRIGGER_LINK: > + lcr_bits = 7 << (led * 4); > + break; > + > + case PHY_LED_TRIGGER_LINK_10M: > + lcr_bits = 1 << (led * 4); > + break; > + > + case PHY_LED_TRIGGER_LINK_100M: > + lcr_bits = 2 << (led * 4); > + break; > + > + case PHY_LED_TRIGGER_LINK_1G: > + lcr_bits |= 4 << (led * 4); > + break; > + > + case PHY_LED_TRIGGER_NONE: > + break; > + > + default: > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + } > + > + if (cfg->trigger.activity) > + lacr_bits = BIT(RLT8211E_LACR_LEDACTCTRL_SHIFT + led); > + > + rtl8211e_disable_eee_led_mode(phydev); > + > + oldpage = rtl8211x_select_ext_page(phydev, 0x2c); > + if (oldpage < 0) > + return oldpage; > + > + ret = __phy_modify(phydev, RTL8211E_LACR, LACR_MASK(led), lacr_bits); > + if (ret) > + goto err; > + > + ret = __phy_modify(phydev, RTL8211E_LCR, LCR_MASK(led), lcr_bits); > + > +err: > + return phy_restore_page(phydev, oldpage, ret); > +} > + > static int rtl8201_ack_interrupt(struct phy_device *phydev) > { > int err; > @@ -330,6 +417,7 @@ static struct phy_driver realtek_drvs[] = { > .config_init = &rtl8211e_config_init, > .ack_interrupt = &rtl821x_ack_interrupt, > .config_intr = &rtl8211e_config_intr, > + .config_led = &rtl8211e_config_led, > .suspend = genphy_suspend, > .resume = genphy_resume, > .read_page = rtl821x_read_page, > -- > 2.23.0.rc1.153.gdeed80330f-goog
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:13:42PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2019-08-13 12:11:47, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > Add a .config_led hook which is called by the PHY core when > > configuration data for a PHY LED is available. Each LED can be > > configured to be solid 'off, solid 'on' for certain (or all) > > link speeds or to blink on RX/TX activity. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> > > THis really needs to go through the LED subsystem, Sorry, I used what get_maintainers.pl threw at me, I should have manually cc-ed the LED list. > and use the same userland interfaces as the rest of the system. With the PHY maintainers we discussed to define a binding that is compatible with that of the LED one, to have the option to integrate it with the LED subsystem later. The integration itself is beyond the scope of this patchset. The PHY LED configuration is a low priority for the project I'm working on. I wanted to make an attempt to upstream it and spent already significantly more time on it than planned, if integration with the LED framework now is a requirement please consider this series abandonded.
On 8/16/19 2:27 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:13:42PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >> On Tue 2019-08-13 12:11:47, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: >>> Add a .config_led hook which is called by the PHY core when >>> configuration data for a PHY LED is available. Each LED can be >>> configured to be solid 'off, solid 'on' for certain (or all) >>> link speeds or to blink on RX/TX activity. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> >> >> THis really needs to go through the LED subsystem, > > Sorry, I used what get_maintainers.pl threw at me, I should have > manually cc-ed the LED list. > >> and use the same userland interfaces as the rest of the system. > > With the PHY maintainers we discussed to define a binding that is > compatible with that of the LED one, to have the option to integrate > it with the LED subsystem later. The integration itself is beyond the > scope of this patchset. > > The PHY LED configuration is a low priority for the project I'm > working on. I wanted to make an attempt to upstream it and spent > already significantly more time on it than planned, if integration > with the LED framework now is a requirement please consider this > series abandonded. While I have an appreciation for how hard it can be to work in a corporate environment while doing upstream first and working with virtually unbounded goals (in time or scope) due to maintainers and reviewers, that kind of statement can hinder your ability to establish trust with peers in the community as it can be read as take it or leave it. The LED subsystem integration can definitively come in later from my 2 cents perspective and this patch series as it stands is valuable and avoids inventing new bindings.
Hi, On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:12 PM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 8/16/19 2:27 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:13:42PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> On Tue 2019-08-13 12:11:47, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > >>> Add a .config_led hook which is called by the PHY core when > >>> configuration data for a PHY LED is available. Each LED can be > >>> configured to be solid 'off, solid 'on' for certain (or all) > >>> link speeds or to blink on RX/TX activity. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> > >> > >> THis really needs to go through the LED subsystem, > > > > Sorry, I used what get_maintainers.pl threw at me, I should have > > manually cc-ed the LED list. > > > >> and use the same userland interfaces as the rest of the system. > > > > With the PHY maintainers we discussed to define a binding that is > > compatible with that of the LED one, to have the option to integrate > > it with the LED subsystem later. The integration itself is beyond the > > scope of this patchset. > > > > The PHY LED configuration is a low priority for the project I'm > > working on. I wanted to make an attempt to upstream it and spent > > already significantly more time on it than planned, if integration > > with the LED framework now is a requirement please consider this > > series abandonded. > > While I have an appreciation for how hard it can be to work in a > corporate environment while doing upstream first and working with > virtually unbounded goals (in time or scope) due to maintainers and > reviewers, that kind of statement can hinder your ability to establish > trust with peers in the community as it can be read as take it or leave it. You think so? I feel like Matthias is simply expressing the reality of the situation here and I'd rather see a statement like this posted than the series just silently dropped. Communication is good. In general on Chrome OS we don't spent lots of time tweaking with Ethernet and even less time tweaking with Ethernet on ARM boards where you might need a binding like this, so it's pretty hard to justify up the management chain spending massive amounts of resources on it. In this case we have two existing ARM boards which we're trying to uprev from 3.14 to 4.19 which were tweaking the Ethernet driver in some downstream code. We thought it would be nice to try to come up with a solution that could land upstream, which is usually what we try to do in these cases. Normally if there is some major architecture needed that can't fit in the scope of a project, we would do a downstream solution for the project and then fork off the task (maybe by a different Engineer or a contractor) to get a solution that can land upstream. ...but in this case it seems hard to justify because it's unlikely we would need it again anytime remotely soon. So I guess the alternatives to what Matthias did would have been: A) Don't even try to upstream. Seems worse. At least this way there's something a future person can start from and the discussion is rolling. B) Keep spending tons of time on something even though management doesn't want him to. Seems worse. C) Spend his nights and weekends working on this. Seems worse. D) Silently stop working on it without saying "I'm going to stop". Seems worse. ...unless you have a brilliant "E)" I think what Matthias did here is exactly right. BTW: I'm giving a talk on this topic next week at ELC [1]. If you're going to be there feel free to attend. ...or just read the slides if not. > The LED subsystem integration can definitively come in later from my 2 > cents perspective and this patch series as it stands is valuable and > avoids inventing new bindings. If something like this series can land and someone can later try to make the situation better then I think that would be awesome. I don't think Matthias is saying "I won't spin" or "I won't take feedback". He's just expressing that he can't keep working on this indefinitely. [1] https://ossna19.sched.com/event/PVSV/how-chrome-os-works-with-upstream-linux-douglas-anderson-google -Doug
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 03:12:47PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 8/16/19 2:27 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:13:42PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> On Tue 2019-08-13 12:11:47, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > >>> Add a .config_led hook which is called by the PHY core when > >>> configuration data for a PHY LED is available. Each LED can be > >>> configured to be solid 'off, solid 'on' for certain (or all) > >>> link speeds or to blink on RX/TX activity. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> > >> > >> THis really needs to go through the LED subsystem, > > > > Sorry, I used what get_maintainers.pl threw at me, I should have > > manually cc-ed the LED list. > > > >> and use the same userland interfaces as the rest of the system. > > > > With the PHY maintainers we discussed to define a binding that is > > compatible with that of the LED one, to have the option to integrate > > it with the LED subsystem later. The integration itself is beyond the > > scope of this patchset. > > > > The PHY LED configuration is a low priority for the project I'm > > working on. I wanted to make an attempt to upstream it and spent > > already significantly more time on it than planned, if integration > > with the LED framework now is a requirement please consider this > > series abandonded. > > While I have an appreciation for how hard it can be to work in a > corporate environment while doing upstream first and working with > virtually unbounded goals (in time or scope) due to maintainers and > reviewers, that kind of statement can hinder your ability to establish > trust with peers in the community as it can be read as take it or leave it. I'm really just stating the reality here. We strongly prefer landing patches upstream over doing custom hacks, and depending on the priority of a given feature/sub-system and impact on schedule we can allocate more time on it or less. In some cases/at some point a downstream patch is just good enough. I definitely don't intend to get a patchset landed if it isn't deemed ready or suitable at all. In this case I just can't justify to spend significantly more time on it. IMO it is better to be clear on this, not to pressure maintainers to take a patch, but so people know what to expect. This information can also help if someone comes across this patchset in the future and wonders about its status. btw, a birdie told me there will be a talk next week at ELC in San Diego on how Chrome OS works with upstream, discussing pros and cons for both the project and upstream. For those who are intersted in the topic but can't make it to the conference, the slides are already online and IMO have good information: https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/ossna19/9c/ELC19_ChromeOSAndUpstream.pdf Cheers Matthias
On Fri 2019-08-16 14:27:28, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:13:42PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Tue 2019-08-13 12:11:47, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > > Add a .config_led hook which is called by the PHY core when > > > configuration data for a PHY LED is available. Each LED can be > > > configured to be solid 'off, solid 'on' for certain (or all) > > > link speeds or to blink on RX/TX activity. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> > > > > THis really needs to go through the LED subsystem, > > Sorry, I used what get_maintainers.pl threw at me, I should have > manually cc-ed the LED list. > > > and use the same userland interfaces as the rest of the system. > > With the PHY maintainers we discussed to define a binding that is > compatible with that of the LED one, to have the option to integrate > it with the LED subsystem later. The integration itself is beyond the > scope of this patchset. Yes, I believe the integration is neccessary. Using same binding is neccessary for that, but not sufficient. For example, we need compatible trigger names, too. So... I'd really like to see proper integration is possible before we merge this. Best regards, Pavel
> Yes, I believe the integration is neccessary. Using same binding is > neccessary for that, but not sufficient. For example, we need > compatible trigger names, too. Hi Pavel Please could you explain what you mean by compatible trigger names? > So... I'd really like to see proper integration is possible before we > merge this. Please let me turn that around. What do you see as being impossible at the moment? What do we need to convince you about? Thanks Andrew
On 8/16/19 3:39 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:12 PM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 8/16/19 2:27 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:13:42PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >>>> On Tue 2019-08-13 12:11:47, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: >>>>> Add a .config_led hook which is called by the PHY core when >>>>> configuration data for a PHY LED is available. Each LED can be >>>>> configured to be solid 'off, solid 'on' for certain (or all) >>>>> link speeds or to blink on RX/TX activity. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> >>>> >>>> THis really needs to go through the LED subsystem, >>> >>> Sorry, I used what get_maintainers.pl threw at me, I should have >>> manually cc-ed the LED list. >>> >>>> and use the same userland interfaces as the rest of the system. >>> >>> With the PHY maintainers we discussed to define a binding that is >>> compatible with that of the LED one, to have the option to integrate >>> it with the LED subsystem later. The integration itself is beyond the >>> scope of this patchset. >>> >>> The PHY LED configuration is a low priority for the project I'm >>> working on. I wanted to make an attempt to upstream it and spent >>> already significantly more time on it than planned, if integration >>> with the LED framework now is a requirement please consider this >>> series abandonded. >> >> While I have an appreciation for how hard it can be to work in a >> corporate environment while doing upstream first and working with >> virtually unbounded goals (in time or scope) due to maintainers and >> reviewers, that kind of statement can hinder your ability to establish >> trust with peers in the community as it can be read as take it or leave it. > > You think so? I feel like Matthias is simply expressing the reality > of the situation here and I'd rather see a statement like this posted > than the series just silently dropped. Communication is good. > > In general on Chrome OS we don't spent lots of time tweaking with > Ethernet and even less time tweaking with Ethernet on ARM boards where > you might need a binding like this, so it's pretty hard to justify up > the management chain spending massive amounts of resources on it. In > this case we have two existing ARM boards which we're trying to uprev > from 3.14 to 4.19 which were tweaking the Ethernet driver in some > downstream code. We thought it would be nice to try to come up with a > solution that could land upstream, which is usually what we try to do > in these cases. > > Normally if there is some major architecture needed that can't fit in > the scope of a project, we would do a downstream solution for the > project and then fork off the task (maybe by a different Engineer or a > contractor) to get a solution that can land upstream. ...but in this > case it seems hard to justify because it's unlikely we would need it > again anytime remotely soon. > > So I guess the alternatives to what Matthias did would have been: > > A) Don't even try to upstream. Seems worse. At least this way > there's something a future person can start from and the discussion is > rolling. > > B) Keep spending tons of time on something even though management > doesn't want him to. Seems worse. > > C) Spend his nights and weekends working on this. Seems worse. > > D) Silently stop working on it without saying "I'm going to stop". Seems worse. > > ...unless you have a brilliant "E)" I think what Matthias did here is > exactly right. I must apologize for making that statement since it was not fair to Matthias, and he has been clear about how much time he can spend on that specific, please accept my apologies for that. Having had many recent encounters with various people not driving projects to completion lately (not specifically within Linux), it looks like I am overly sensitive about flagging words and patch status that may fall within that lexicon. The choice of word is what triggered me. > > BTW: I'm giving a talk on this topic next week at ELC [1]. If you're > going to be there feel free to attend. ...or just read the slides if > not. I wish I could be there but that was not possible this year. > > >> The LED subsystem integration can definitively come in later from my 2 >> cents perspective and this patch series as it stands is valuable and >> avoids inventing new bindings. > > If something like this series can land and someone can later try to > make the situation better then I think that would be awesome. I don't > think Matthias is saying "I won't spin" or "I won't take feedback". > He's just expressing that he can't keep working on this indefinitely. > > > > [1] https://ossna19.sched.com/event/PVSV/how-chrome-os-works-with-upstream-linux-douglas-anderson-google > > -Doug >
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:58:09PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 8/16/19 3:39 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:12 PM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 8/16/19 2:27 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > >>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:13:42PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > >>>> On Tue 2019-08-13 12:11:47, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > >>>>> Add a .config_led hook which is called by the PHY core when > >>>>> configuration data for a PHY LED is available. Each LED can be > >>>>> configured to be solid 'off, solid 'on' for certain (or all) > >>>>> link speeds or to blink on RX/TX activity. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> > >>>> > >>>> THis really needs to go through the LED subsystem, > >>> > >>> Sorry, I used what get_maintainers.pl threw at me, I should have > >>> manually cc-ed the LED list. > >>> > >>>> and use the same userland interfaces as the rest of the system. > >>> > >>> With the PHY maintainers we discussed to define a binding that is > >>> compatible with that of the LED one, to have the option to integrate > >>> it with the LED subsystem later. The integration itself is beyond the > >>> scope of this patchset. > >>> > >>> The PHY LED configuration is a low priority for the project I'm > >>> working on. I wanted to make an attempt to upstream it and spent > >>> already significantly more time on it than planned, if integration > >>> with the LED framework now is a requirement please consider this > >>> series abandonded. > >> > >> While I have an appreciation for how hard it can be to work in a > >> corporate environment while doing upstream first and working with > >> virtually unbounded goals (in time or scope) due to maintainers and > >> reviewers, that kind of statement can hinder your ability to establish > >> trust with peers in the community as it can be read as take it or leave it. > > > > You think so? I feel like Matthias is simply expressing the reality > > of the situation here and I'd rather see a statement like this posted > > than the series just silently dropped. Communication is good. > > > > In general on Chrome OS we don't spent lots of time tweaking with > > Ethernet and even less time tweaking with Ethernet on ARM boards where > > you might need a binding like this, so it's pretty hard to justify up > > the management chain spending massive amounts of resources on it. In > > this case we have two existing ARM boards which we're trying to uprev > > from 3.14 to 4.19 which were tweaking the Ethernet driver in some > > downstream code. We thought it would be nice to try to come up with a > > solution that could land upstream, which is usually what we try to do > > in these cases. > > > > Normally if there is some major architecture needed that can't fit in > > the scope of a project, we would do a downstream solution for the > > project and then fork off the task (maybe by a different Engineer or a > > contractor) to get a solution that can land upstream. ...but in this > > case it seems hard to justify because it's unlikely we would need it > > again anytime remotely soon. > > > > So I guess the alternatives to what Matthias did would have been: > > > > A) Don't even try to upstream. Seems worse. At least this way > > there's something a future person can start from and the discussion is > > rolling. > > > > B) Keep spending tons of time on something even though management > > doesn't want him to. Seems worse. > > > > C) Spend his nights and weekends working on this. Seems worse. > > > > D) Silently stop working on it without saying "I'm going to stop". Seems worse. > > > > ...unless you have a brilliant "E)" I think what Matthias did here is > > exactly right. > > I must apologize for making that statement since it was not fair to > Matthias, and he has been clear about how much time he can spend on that > specific, please accept my apologies for that. > > Having had many recent encounters with various people not driving > projects to completion lately (not specifically within Linux), it looks > like I am overly sensitive about flagging words and patch status that > may fall within that lexicon. The choice of word is what triggered me. No worries, I understand that it can be frustrating if you repeatedly experience that projects remain unfinished. Hopefully this series can be revived eventually when somebody finds the time to work on the integration with the LED framework.
On Mon 2019-08-19 02:37:57, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > Yes, I believe the integration is neccessary. Using same binding is > > neccessary for that, but not sufficient. For example, we need > > compatible trigger names, too. > > Hi Pavel > > Please could you explain what you mean by compatible trigger names? Well, you attempted to put trigger names in device tree. That means those names should work w.r.t. LED subsystem, too. > > So... I'd really like to see proper integration is possible before we > > merge this. > > Please let me turn that around. What do you see as being impossible at > the moment? What do we need to convince you about? That locking requirements are compatible, that triggers you invented can be implemented by LED subsystem, ... Best regards, Pavel
diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/realtek.c b/drivers/net/phy/realtek.c index a5b3708dc4d8..2bca3b91d43d 100644 --- a/drivers/net/phy/realtek.c +++ b/drivers/net/phy/realtek.c @@ -9,8 +9,9 @@ * Copyright (c) 2004 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. */ #include <linux/bitops.h> -#include <linux/phy.h> +#include <linux/bits.h> #include <linux/module.h> +#include <linux/phy.h> #define RTL821x_PHYSR 0x11 #define RTL821x_PHYSR_DUPLEX BIT(13) @@ -26,6 +27,19 @@ #define RTL821x_EXT_PAGE_SELECT 0x1e #define RTL821x_PAGE_SELECT 0x1f +/* RTL8211E page 5 */ +#define RTL8211E_EEE_LED_MODE1 0x05 +#define RTL8211E_EEE_LED_MODE2 0x06 + +/* RTL8211E extension page 44 (0x2c) */ +#define RTL8211E_LACR 0x1a +#define RLT8211E_LACR_LEDACTCTRL_SHIFT 4 +#define RTL8211E_LCR 0x1c + +#define LACR_MASK(led) BIT(4 + (led)) +#define LCR_MASK(led) GENMASK(((led) * 4) + 2,\ + (led) * 4) + #define RTL8211F_INSR 0x1d #define RTL8211F_TX_DELAY BIT(8) @@ -83,6 +97,79 @@ static int rtl8211x_modify_ext_paged(struct phy_device *phydev, int page, return phy_restore_page(phydev, oldpage, ret); } +static void rtl8211e_disable_eee_led_mode(struct phy_device *phydev) +{ + int oldpage; + int err = 0; + + oldpage = phy_select_page(phydev, 5); + if (oldpage < 0) + goto out; + + /* write magic values to disable EEE LED mode */ + err = __phy_write(phydev, RTL8211E_EEE_LED_MODE1, 0x8b82); + if (err) + goto out; + + err = __phy_write(phydev, RTL8211E_EEE_LED_MODE2, 0x052b); + +out: + if (err) + phydev_warn(phydev, "failed to disable EEE LED mode: %d\n", + err); + + phy_restore_page(phydev, oldpage, err); +} + +static int rtl8211e_config_led(struct phy_device *phydev, int led, + struct phy_led_config *cfg) +{ + u16 lacr_bits = 0, lcr_bits = 0; + int oldpage, ret; + + switch (cfg->trigger.t) { + case PHY_LED_TRIGGER_LINK: + lcr_bits = 7 << (led * 4); + break; + + case PHY_LED_TRIGGER_LINK_10M: + lcr_bits = 1 << (led * 4); + break; + + case PHY_LED_TRIGGER_LINK_100M: + lcr_bits = 2 << (led * 4); + break; + + case PHY_LED_TRIGGER_LINK_1G: + lcr_bits |= 4 << (led * 4); + break; + + case PHY_LED_TRIGGER_NONE: + break; + + default: + return -EOPNOTSUPP; + } + + if (cfg->trigger.activity) + lacr_bits = BIT(RLT8211E_LACR_LEDACTCTRL_SHIFT + led); + + rtl8211e_disable_eee_led_mode(phydev); + + oldpage = rtl8211x_select_ext_page(phydev, 0x2c); + if (oldpage < 0) + return oldpage; + + ret = __phy_modify(phydev, RTL8211E_LACR, LACR_MASK(led), lacr_bits); + if (ret) + goto err; + + ret = __phy_modify(phydev, RTL8211E_LCR, LCR_MASK(led), lcr_bits); + +err: + return phy_restore_page(phydev, oldpage, ret); +} + static int rtl8201_ack_interrupt(struct phy_device *phydev) { int err; @@ -330,6 +417,7 @@ static struct phy_driver realtek_drvs[] = { .config_init = &rtl8211e_config_init, .ack_interrupt = &rtl821x_ack_interrupt, .config_intr = &rtl8211e_config_intr, + .config_led = &rtl8211e_config_led, .suspend = genphy_suspend, .resume = genphy_resume, .read_page = rtl821x_read_page,
Add a .config_led hook which is called by the PHY core when configuration data for a PHY LED is available. Each LED can be configured to be solid 'off, solid 'on' for certain (or all) link speeds or to blink on RX/TX activity. Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> --- Changes in v6: - return -EOPNOTSUPP if trigger is not supported, don't log warning - don't log errors if MDIO ops fail, this is rare and the phy_device will log a warning - added parentheses around macro argument used in arithmetics to avoid possible operator precedence issues - minor formatting changes Changes in v5: - use 'config_leds' driver callback instead of requesting the DT configuration - added support for trigger 'none' - always disable EEE LED mode when a LED is configured. We have no device data struct to keep track of its state, the number of LEDs is limited, so the overhead of disabling it multiple times (once for each LED that is configured) during initialization is negligible - print warning when disabling EEE LED mode fails - updated commit message (previous subject was 'net: phy: realtek: configure RTL8211E LEDs') Changes in v4: - use the generic PHY LED binding - keep default/current configuration if none is specified - added rtl8211e_disable_eee_led_mode() - was previously in separate patch, however since we always want to disable EEE LED mode when a LED configuration is specified it makes sense to just add the function here. - don't call phy_restore_page() in rtl8211e_config_leds() if selection of the extended page failed. - use phydev_warn() instead of phydev_err() if LED configuration fails since we don't bail out - use hex number to specify page for consistency - add hex number to comment about ext page 44 to facilitate searching Changes in v3: - sanity check led-modes values - set LACR bits in a more readable way - use phydev_err() instead of dev_err() - log an error if LED configuration fails Changes in v2: - patch added to the series --- drivers/net/phy/realtek.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)