| Message ID | E1iXP7P-0006DS-47@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net-next,v2] net: sfp: soft status and control support | expand |
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:29:59PM +0000, Russell King wrote: > Add support for the soft status and control register, which allows > TX_FAULT and RX_LOS to be monitored and TX_DISABLE to be set. We > make use of this when the board does not support GPIOs for these > signals. Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> Andrew
On 11/20/2019 4:29 AM, Russell King wrote: > Add support for the soft status and control register, which allows > TX_FAULT and RX_LOS to be monitored and TX_DISABLE to be set. We > make use of this when the board does not support GPIOs for these > signals. > > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
From: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:29:59 +0000 > Add support for the soft status and control register, which allows > TX_FAULT and RX_LOS to be monitored and TX_DISABLE to be set. We > make use of this when the board does not support GPIOs for these > signals. > > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> Applied.
> Subject: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control support > > Add support for the soft status and control register, which allows TX_FAULT > and RX_LOS to be monitored and TX_DISABLE to be set. We make use of this > when the board does not support GPIOs for these signals. Hi Russell, With this addition, shouldn't the following print be removed? [ 2.967583] sfp sfp-mac4: No tx_disable pin: SFP modules will always be emitting. Ioana > > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> > --- > drivers/net/phy/sfp.c | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > --- > include/linux/sfp.h | 4 ++ > 2 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c index > 69bedef96ca7..da9e7dd50b95 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c > @@ -201,7 +201,10 @@ struct sfp { > struct gpio_desc *gpio[GPIO_MAX]; > int gpio_irq[GPIO_MAX]; > > + bool need_poll; > + > struct mutex st_mutex; /* Protects state */ > + unsigned int state_soft_mask; > unsigned int state; > struct delayed_work poll; > struct delayed_work timeout; > @@ -395,24 +398,90 @@ static int sfp_i2c_configure(struct sfp *sfp, struct > i2c_adapter *i2c) } > > /* Interface */ > -static unsigned int sfp_get_state(struct sfp *sfp) > +static int sfp_read(struct sfp *sfp, bool a2, u8 addr, void *buf, > +size_t len) > { > - return sfp->get_state(sfp); > + return sfp->read(sfp, a2, addr, buf, len); > } > > -static void sfp_set_state(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int state) > +static int sfp_write(struct sfp *sfp, bool a2, u8 addr, void *buf, > +size_t len) > { > - sfp->set_state(sfp, state); > + return sfp->write(sfp, a2, addr, buf, len); > } > > -static int sfp_read(struct sfp *sfp, bool a2, u8 addr, void *buf, size_t len) > +static unsigned int sfp_soft_get_state(struct sfp *sfp) > { > - return sfp->read(sfp, a2, addr, buf, len); > + unsigned int state = 0; > + u8 status; > + > + if (sfp_read(sfp, true, SFP_STATUS, &status, sizeof(status)) == > + sizeof(status)) { > + if (status & SFP_STATUS_RX_LOS) > + state |= SFP_F_LOS; > + if (status & SFP_STATUS_TX_FAULT) > + state |= SFP_F_TX_FAULT; > + } > + > + return state & sfp->state_soft_mask; > } > > -static int sfp_write(struct sfp *sfp, bool a2, u8 addr, void *buf, size_t len) > +static void sfp_soft_set_state(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int state) > { > - return sfp->write(sfp, a2, addr, buf, len); > + u8 status; > + > + if (sfp_read(sfp, true, SFP_STATUS, &status, sizeof(status)) == > + sizeof(status)) { > + if (state & SFP_F_TX_DISABLE) > + status |= SFP_STATUS_TX_DISABLE_FORCE; > + else > + status &= ~SFP_STATUS_TX_DISABLE_FORCE; > + > + sfp_write(sfp, true, SFP_STATUS, &status, sizeof(status)); > + } > +} > + > +static void sfp_soft_start_poll(struct sfp *sfp) { > + const struct sfp_eeprom_id *id = &sfp->id; > + > + sfp->state_soft_mask = 0; > + if (id->ext.enhopts & SFP_ENHOPTS_SOFT_TX_DISABLE && > + !sfp->gpio[GPIO_TX_DISABLE]) > + sfp->state_soft_mask |= SFP_F_TX_DISABLE; > + if (id->ext.enhopts & SFP_ENHOPTS_SOFT_TX_FAULT && > + !sfp->gpio[GPIO_TX_FAULT]) > + sfp->state_soft_mask |= SFP_F_TX_FAULT; > + if (id->ext.enhopts & SFP_ENHOPTS_SOFT_RX_LOS && > + !sfp->gpio[GPIO_LOS]) > + sfp->state_soft_mask |= SFP_F_LOS; > + > + if (sfp->state_soft_mask & (SFP_F_LOS | SFP_F_TX_FAULT) && > + !sfp->need_poll) > + mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &sfp->poll, poll_jiffies); } > + > +static void sfp_soft_stop_poll(struct sfp *sfp) { > + sfp->state_soft_mask = 0; > +} > + > +static unsigned int sfp_get_state(struct sfp *sfp) { > + unsigned int state = sfp->get_state(sfp); > + > + if (state & SFP_F_PRESENT && > + sfp->state_soft_mask & (SFP_F_LOS | SFP_F_TX_FAULT)) > + state |= sfp_soft_get_state(sfp); > + > + return state; > +} > + > +static void sfp_set_state(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int state) { > + sfp->set_state(sfp, state); > + > + if (state & SFP_F_PRESENT && > + sfp->state_soft_mask & SFP_F_TX_DISABLE) > + sfp_soft_set_state(sfp, state); > } > > static unsigned int sfp_check(void *buf, size_t len) @@ -1344,11 +1413,6 > @@ static void sfp_sm_fault(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int next_state, bool > warn) > } > } > > -static void sfp_sm_mod_init(struct sfp *sfp) -{ > - sfp_module_tx_enable(sfp); > -} > - > static void sfp_sm_probe_for_phy(struct sfp *sfp) { > /* Setting the serdes link mode is guesswork: there's no @@ -1511,7 > +1575,7 @@ static int sfp_sm_mod_probe(struct sfp *sfp, bool report) > (int)sizeof(id.ext.datecode), id.ext.datecode); > > /* Check whether we support this module */ > - if (!sfp->type->module_supported(&sfp->id)) { > + if (!sfp->type->module_supported(&id)) { > dev_err(sfp->dev, > "module is not supported - phys id 0x%02x > 0x%02x\n", > sfp->id.base.phys_id, sfp->id.base.phys_ext_id); > @@ -1701,6 +1765,7 @@ static void sfp_sm_main(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned > int event) > if (sfp->mod_phy) > sfp_sm_phy_detach(sfp); > sfp_module_tx_disable(sfp); > + sfp_soft_stop_poll(sfp); > sfp_sm_next(sfp, SFP_S_DOWN, 0); > return; > } > @@ -1712,7 +1777,10 @@ static void sfp_sm_main(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned > int event) > sfp->sm_dev_state != SFP_DEV_UP) > break; > > - sfp_sm_mod_init(sfp); > + if (!(sfp->id.ext.diagmon & SFP_DIAGMON_ADDRMODE)) > + sfp_soft_start_poll(sfp); > + > + sfp_module_tx_enable(sfp); > > /* Initialise the fault clearance retries */ > sfp->sm_retries = 5; > @@ -1968,7 +2036,10 @@ static void sfp_poll(struct work_struct *work) > struct sfp *sfp = container_of(work, struct sfp, poll.work); > > sfp_check_state(sfp); > - mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &sfp->poll, poll_jiffies); > + > + if (sfp->state_soft_mask & (SFP_F_LOS | SFP_F_TX_FAULT) || > + sfp->need_poll) > + mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &sfp->poll, poll_jiffies); > } > > static struct sfp *sfp_alloc(struct device *dev) @@ -2013,7 +2084,6 @@ > static int sfp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > const struct sff_data *sff; > struct i2c_adapter *i2c; > struct sfp *sfp; > - bool poll = false; > int err, i; > > sfp = sfp_alloc(&pdev->dev); > @@ -2120,7 +2190,7 @@ static int sfp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > sfp->gpio_irq[i] = gpiod_to_irq(sfp->gpio[i]); > if (!sfp->gpio_irq[i]) { > - poll = true; > + sfp->need_poll = true; > continue; > } > > @@ -2132,11 +2202,11 @@ static int sfp_probe(struct platform_device > *pdev) > dev_name(sfp->dev), sfp); > if (err) { > sfp->gpio_irq[i] = 0; > - poll = true; > + sfp->need_poll = true; > } > } > > - if (poll) > + if (sfp->need_poll) > mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &sfp->poll, poll_jiffies); > > /* We could have an issue in cases no Tx disable pin is available or diff > --git a/include/linux/sfp.h b/include/linux/sfp.h index > 3b35efd85bb1..487fd9412d10 100644 > --- a/include/linux/sfp.h > +++ b/include/linux/sfp.h > @@ -428,6 +428,10 @@ enum { > SFP_TEC_CUR = 0x6c, > > SFP_STATUS = 0x6e, > + SFP_STATUS_TX_DISABLE = BIT(7), > + SFP_STATUS_TX_DISABLE_FORCE = BIT(6), > + SFP_STATUS_TX_FAULT = BIT(2), > + SFP_STATUS_RX_LOS = BIT(1), > SFP_ALARM0 = 0x70, > SFP_ALARM0_TEMP_HIGH = BIT(7), > SFP_ALARM0_TEMP_LOW = BIT(6), > -- > 2.20.1
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > Subject: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control support > > > > Add support for the soft status and control register, which allows TX_FAULT > > and RX_LOS to be monitored and TX_DISABLE to be set. We make use of this > > when the board does not support GPIOs for these signals. > > Hi Russell, > > With this addition, shouldn't the following print be removed? > > [ 2.967583] sfp sfp-mac4: No tx_disable pin: SFP modules will always be emitting. Hi Ioana Does the SFP you are using actually support soft status? Andrew
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > Subject: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control support > > > > Add support for the soft status and control register, which allows TX_FAULT > > and RX_LOS to be monitored and TX_DISABLE to be set. We make use of this > > when the board does not support GPIOs for these signals. > > Hi Russell, > > With this addition, shouldn't the following print be removed? > > [ 2.967583] sfp sfp-mac4: No tx_disable pin: SFP modules will always be emitting. No, because modules do not have to provide the soft controls.
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control support > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > > Subject: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control > > > support > > > > > > Add support for the soft status and control register, which allows > > > TX_FAULT and RX_LOS to be monitored and TX_DISABLE to be set. We > > > make use of this when the board does not support GPIOs for these > signals. > > > > Hi Russell, > > > > With this addition, shouldn't the following print be removed? > > > > [ 2.967583] sfp sfp-mac4: No tx_disable pin: SFP modules will always be > emitting. > > Hi Ioana > > Does the SFP you are using actually support soft status? > > Andrew Yes, it does. I am testing with a FINISAR FTLX8571D3BCL and checked its datasheet besides verifying that the laser is actually disabled. Ioana
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control support > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > > Subject: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control > > > support > > > > > > Add support for the soft status and control register, which allows > > > TX_FAULT and RX_LOS to be monitored and TX_DISABLE to be set. We > > > make use of this when the board does not support GPIOs for these > signals. > > > > Hi Russell, > > > > With this addition, shouldn't the following print be removed? > > > > [ 2.967583] sfp sfp-mac4: No tx_disable pin: SFP modules will always be > emitting. > > No, because modules do not have to provide the soft controls. > I understand that the soft controls are optional but can't we read byte 93 (Enhanced Options) and see if bit 6 (Optional soft TX_DISABLE control) is set or not (ie the soft TX_DISABLE is implemented)? Ioana
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 06:33:41PM +0000, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control support > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > > > Subject: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control > > > > support > > > > > > > > Add support for the soft status and control register, which allows > > > > TX_FAULT and RX_LOS to be monitored and TX_DISABLE to be set. We > > > > make use of this when the board does not support GPIOs for these > > signals. > > > > > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > With this addition, shouldn't the following print be removed? > > > > > > [ 2.967583] sfp sfp-mac4: No tx_disable pin: SFP modules will always be > > emitting. > > > > No, because modules do not have to provide the soft controls. > > > > I understand that the soft controls are optional but can't we read > byte 93 (Enhanced Options) and see if bit 6 (Optional soft TX_DISABLE control) > is set or not (ie the soft TX_DISABLE is implemented)? At cage initialisation time, when we don't know whether there's a module present or not?
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control support > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 06:33:41PM +0000, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control > > > support > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > > > > Subject: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > Add support for the soft status and control register, which > > > > > allows TX_FAULT and RX_LOS to be monitored and TX_DISABLE to be > > > > > set. We make use of this when the board does not support GPIOs > > > > > for these > > > signals. > > > > > > > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > > > With this addition, shouldn't the following print be removed? > > > > > > > > [ 2.967583] sfp sfp-mac4: No tx_disable pin: SFP modules will always be > > > emitting. > > > > > > No, because modules do not have to provide the soft controls. > > > > > > > I understand that the soft controls are optional but can't we read > > byte 93 (Enhanced Options) and see if bit 6 (Optional soft TX_DISABLE > > control) is set or not (ie the soft TX_DISABLE is implemented)? > > At cage initialisation time, when we don't know whether there's a module > present or not? > I was not suggesting to keep the print exactly in place. Anyway, it was merely a curiosity because it can be a misleading info in some situations. Ioana
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 07:14:01PM +0000, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control support > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 06:33:41PM +0000, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control > > > > support > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH net-next v2] net: sfp: soft status and control > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > > > Add support for the soft status and control register, which > > > > > > allows TX_FAULT and RX_LOS to be monitored and TX_DISABLE to be > > > > > > set. We make use of this when the board does not support GPIOs > > > > > > for these > > > > signals. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > > > > > With this addition, shouldn't the following print be removed? > > > > > > > > > > [ 2.967583] sfp sfp-mac4: No tx_disable pin: SFP modules will always be > > > > emitting. > > > > > > > > No, because modules do not have to provide the soft controls. > > > > > > > > > > I understand that the soft controls are optional but can't we read > > > byte 93 (Enhanced Options) and see if bit 6 (Optional soft TX_DISABLE > > > control) is set or not (ie the soft TX_DISABLE is implemented)? > > > > At cage initialisation time, when we don't know whether there's a module > > present or not? > > > > I was not suggesting to keep the print exactly in place. > Anyway, it was merely a curiosity because it can be a misleading info in > some situations. However, it's the safe thing to do, to assume that the module soft TX disable may not be implemented or working.
diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c index 69bedef96ca7..da9e7dd50b95 100644 --- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c +++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c @@ -201,7 +201,10 @@ struct sfp { struct gpio_desc *gpio[GPIO_MAX]; int gpio_irq[GPIO_MAX]; + bool need_poll; + struct mutex st_mutex; /* Protects state */ + unsigned int state_soft_mask; unsigned int state; struct delayed_work poll; struct delayed_work timeout; @@ -395,24 +398,90 @@ static int sfp_i2c_configure(struct sfp *sfp, struct i2c_adapter *i2c) } /* Interface */ -static unsigned int sfp_get_state(struct sfp *sfp) +static int sfp_read(struct sfp *sfp, bool a2, u8 addr, void *buf, size_t len) { - return sfp->get_state(sfp); + return sfp->read(sfp, a2, addr, buf, len); } -static void sfp_set_state(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int state) +static int sfp_write(struct sfp *sfp, bool a2, u8 addr, void *buf, size_t len) { - sfp->set_state(sfp, state); + return sfp->write(sfp, a2, addr, buf, len); } -static int sfp_read(struct sfp *sfp, bool a2, u8 addr, void *buf, size_t len) +static unsigned int sfp_soft_get_state(struct sfp *sfp) { - return sfp->read(sfp, a2, addr, buf, len); + unsigned int state = 0; + u8 status; + + if (sfp_read(sfp, true, SFP_STATUS, &status, sizeof(status)) == + sizeof(status)) { + if (status & SFP_STATUS_RX_LOS) + state |= SFP_F_LOS; + if (status & SFP_STATUS_TX_FAULT) + state |= SFP_F_TX_FAULT; + } + + return state & sfp->state_soft_mask; } -static int sfp_write(struct sfp *sfp, bool a2, u8 addr, void *buf, size_t len) +static void sfp_soft_set_state(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int state) { - return sfp->write(sfp, a2, addr, buf, len); + u8 status; + + if (sfp_read(sfp, true, SFP_STATUS, &status, sizeof(status)) == + sizeof(status)) { + if (state & SFP_F_TX_DISABLE) + status |= SFP_STATUS_TX_DISABLE_FORCE; + else + status &= ~SFP_STATUS_TX_DISABLE_FORCE; + + sfp_write(sfp, true, SFP_STATUS, &status, sizeof(status)); + } +} + +static void sfp_soft_start_poll(struct sfp *sfp) +{ + const struct sfp_eeprom_id *id = &sfp->id; + + sfp->state_soft_mask = 0; + if (id->ext.enhopts & SFP_ENHOPTS_SOFT_TX_DISABLE && + !sfp->gpio[GPIO_TX_DISABLE]) + sfp->state_soft_mask |= SFP_F_TX_DISABLE; + if (id->ext.enhopts & SFP_ENHOPTS_SOFT_TX_FAULT && + !sfp->gpio[GPIO_TX_FAULT]) + sfp->state_soft_mask |= SFP_F_TX_FAULT; + if (id->ext.enhopts & SFP_ENHOPTS_SOFT_RX_LOS && + !sfp->gpio[GPIO_LOS]) + sfp->state_soft_mask |= SFP_F_LOS; + + if (sfp->state_soft_mask & (SFP_F_LOS | SFP_F_TX_FAULT) && + !sfp->need_poll) + mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &sfp->poll, poll_jiffies); +} + +static void sfp_soft_stop_poll(struct sfp *sfp) +{ + sfp->state_soft_mask = 0; +} + +static unsigned int sfp_get_state(struct sfp *sfp) +{ + unsigned int state = sfp->get_state(sfp); + + if (state & SFP_F_PRESENT && + sfp->state_soft_mask & (SFP_F_LOS | SFP_F_TX_FAULT)) + state |= sfp_soft_get_state(sfp); + + return state; +} + +static void sfp_set_state(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int state) +{ + sfp->set_state(sfp, state); + + if (state & SFP_F_PRESENT && + sfp->state_soft_mask & SFP_F_TX_DISABLE) + sfp_soft_set_state(sfp, state); } static unsigned int sfp_check(void *buf, size_t len) @@ -1344,11 +1413,6 @@ static void sfp_sm_fault(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int next_state, bool warn) } } -static void sfp_sm_mod_init(struct sfp *sfp) -{ - sfp_module_tx_enable(sfp); -} - static void sfp_sm_probe_for_phy(struct sfp *sfp) { /* Setting the serdes link mode is guesswork: there's no @@ -1511,7 +1575,7 @@ static int sfp_sm_mod_probe(struct sfp *sfp, bool report) (int)sizeof(id.ext.datecode), id.ext.datecode); /* Check whether we support this module */ - if (!sfp->type->module_supported(&sfp->id)) { + if (!sfp->type->module_supported(&id)) { dev_err(sfp->dev, "module is not supported - phys id 0x%02x 0x%02x\n", sfp->id.base.phys_id, sfp->id.base.phys_ext_id); @@ -1701,6 +1765,7 @@ static void sfp_sm_main(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int event) if (sfp->mod_phy) sfp_sm_phy_detach(sfp); sfp_module_tx_disable(sfp); + sfp_soft_stop_poll(sfp); sfp_sm_next(sfp, SFP_S_DOWN, 0); return; } @@ -1712,7 +1777,10 @@ static void sfp_sm_main(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int event) sfp->sm_dev_state != SFP_DEV_UP) break; - sfp_sm_mod_init(sfp); + if (!(sfp->id.ext.diagmon & SFP_DIAGMON_ADDRMODE)) + sfp_soft_start_poll(sfp); + + sfp_module_tx_enable(sfp); /* Initialise the fault clearance retries */ sfp->sm_retries = 5; @@ -1968,7 +2036,10 @@ static void sfp_poll(struct work_struct *work) struct sfp *sfp = container_of(work, struct sfp, poll.work); sfp_check_state(sfp); - mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &sfp->poll, poll_jiffies); + + if (sfp->state_soft_mask & (SFP_F_LOS | SFP_F_TX_FAULT) || + sfp->need_poll) + mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &sfp->poll, poll_jiffies); } static struct sfp *sfp_alloc(struct device *dev) @@ -2013,7 +2084,6 @@ static int sfp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) const struct sff_data *sff; struct i2c_adapter *i2c; struct sfp *sfp; - bool poll = false; int err, i; sfp = sfp_alloc(&pdev->dev); @@ -2120,7 +2190,7 @@ static int sfp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) sfp->gpio_irq[i] = gpiod_to_irq(sfp->gpio[i]); if (!sfp->gpio_irq[i]) { - poll = true; + sfp->need_poll = true; continue; } @@ -2132,11 +2202,11 @@ static int sfp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) dev_name(sfp->dev), sfp); if (err) { sfp->gpio_irq[i] = 0; - poll = true; + sfp->need_poll = true; } } - if (poll) + if (sfp->need_poll) mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &sfp->poll, poll_jiffies); /* We could have an issue in cases no Tx disable pin is available or diff --git a/include/linux/sfp.h b/include/linux/sfp.h index 3b35efd85bb1..487fd9412d10 100644 --- a/include/linux/sfp.h +++ b/include/linux/sfp.h @@ -428,6 +428,10 @@ enum { SFP_TEC_CUR = 0x6c, SFP_STATUS = 0x6e, + SFP_STATUS_TX_DISABLE = BIT(7), + SFP_STATUS_TX_DISABLE_FORCE = BIT(6), + SFP_STATUS_TX_FAULT = BIT(2), + SFP_STATUS_RX_LOS = BIT(1), SFP_ALARM0 = 0x70, SFP_ALARM0_TEMP_HIGH = BIT(7), SFP_ALARM0_TEMP_LOW = BIT(6),
Add support for the soft status and control register, which allows TX_FAULT and RX_LOS to be monitored and TX_DISABLE to be set. We make use of this when the board does not support GPIOs for these signals. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> --- drivers/net/phy/sfp.c | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- include/linux/sfp.h | 4 ++ 2 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)