| Message ID | 20210105161533.250865-1-marex@denx.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | RFC |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [RFC] net: phy: smsc: Add magnetics VIO regulator support | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/cover_letter | success | Link |
| netdev/fixes_present | success | Link |
| netdev/patch_count | success | Link |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be net-next |
| netdev/subject_prefix | warning | Target tree name not specified in the subject |
| netdev/cc_maintainers | warning | 4 maintainers not CCed: linux@armlinux.org.uk kuba@kernel.org lgirdwood@gmail.com broonie@kernel.org |
| netdev/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/verify_signedoff | success | Link |
| netdev/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/build_32bit | fail | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 1 |
| 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, 54 lines checked |
| netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn | fail | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 1 |
| netdev/header_inline | success | Link |
| netdev/stable | success | Stable not CCed |
> +static void smsc_link_change_notify(struct phy_device *phydev) > +{ > + struct smsc_phy_priv *priv = phydev->priv; > + > + if (!priv->vddio) > + return; > + > + if (phydev->state == PHY_HALTED) > + regulator_disable(priv->vddio); > + > + if (phydev->state == PHY_NOLINK) > + regulator_enable(priv->vddio); NOLINK is an interesting choice. Could you explain that please. I fear this is not going to be very robust to state machine changes. And since it is hidden away in a driver, it is going to be forgotten about. You might want to think about making it more robust. Andrew
On 1/5/21 6:38 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> +static void smsc_link_change_notify(struct phy_device *phydev) >> +{ >> + struct smsc_phy_priv *priv = phydev->priv; >> + >> + if (!priv->vddio) >> + return; >> + >> + if (phydev->state == PHY_HALTED) >> + regulator_disable(priv->vddio); >> + >> + if (phydev->state == PHY_NOLINK) >> + regulator_enable(priv->vddio); > > NOLINK is an interesting choice. Could you explain that please. It's the first state after interface is up. > I fear this is not going to be very robust to state machine > changes. And since it is hidden away in a driver, it is going to be > forgotten about. You might want to think about making it more robust. I marked the patch as RFC because I would like input on how to implement this properly. Note that since the regulator supplies the magnetics, which might be shared between multiple ports with different PHYs, I don't think this code should even be in the PHY driver, but somewhere else -- but I don't know where.
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 06:53:48PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 1/5/21 6:38 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > +static void smsc_link_change_notify(struct phy_device *phydev) > > > +{ > > > + struct smsc_phy_priv *priv = phydev->priv; > > > + > > > + if (!priv->vddio) > > > + return; > > > + > > > + if (phydev->state == PHY_HALTED) > > > + regulator_disable(priv->vddio); > > > + > > > + if (phydev->state == PHY_NOLINK) > > > + regulator_enable(priv->vddio); > > > > NOLINK is an interesting choice. Could you explain that please. > > It's the first state after interface is up. No, not really. phy_start() actually sets it to PHY_UP. When the state machine runs, it kicks off auto-neg and immediately reads the link state. If the link is down, it transitions to PHY_NOLINK, at which point this code will enable the regulator. > > I fear this is not going to be very robust to state machine > > changes. And since it is hidden away in a driver, it is going to be > > forgotten about. You might want to think about making it more robust. > > I marked the patch as RFC because I would like input on how to implement > this properly. Note that since the regulator supplies the magnetics, which > might be shared between multiple ports with different PHYs, I don't think > this code should even be in the PHY driver, but somewhere else -- but I > don't know where. Being shared should not be a problem. The regulator API does reference counting. Any one driver turning the regulator on will enable it. But it will not be turned off until all the drivers disable it after enabling it. But that also means you need to balance the calls to regulator_enable() and regulator_disable(). If for whatever reason this function is called for PHY_HALTED more times than for PHY_NOLINK, the counter can go negative, and bad things would happen. So i would actually had a bool to smsc_phy_priv indicating if the regulator has been enabled. And for each phydev->state, decide if the regulator should be enabled, check if it is enabled according to the bool, and enable it is not. Same with states which indicate it should be disabled. The code is then not dependent on specific transitions, but on actual states. That should be more robust to changes. You also need to think about this regulator being shared. Say some other PHY has enabled the regulator. phy_start() might be able to skip PHY_NOLINK state and so this PHY never calls regulator_enable(). If that other PHY is then configured down, it will disable the regulator, and this PHY looses link. That probably is enough for this PHY to re-enable the regulator, but it is not ideal. Andrew
On 1/5/21 8:03 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 06:53:48PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 1/5/21 6:38 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>>> +static void smsc_link_change_notify(struct phy_device *phydev) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct smsc_phy_priv *priv = phydev->priv; >>>> + >>>> + if (!priv->vddio) >>>> + return; >>>> + >>>> + if (phydev->state == PHY_HALTED) >>>> + regulator_disable(priv->vddio); >>>> + >>>> + if (phydev->state == PHY_NOLINK) >>>> + regulator_enable(priv->vddio); >>> >>> NOLINK is an interesting choice. Could you explain that please. >> >> It's the first state after interface is up. > > No, not really. phy_start() actually sets it to PHY_UP. When the state > machine runs, it kicks off auto-neg and immediately reads the link > state. If the link is down, it transitions to PHY_NOLINK, at which > point this code will enable the regulator. > >>> I fear this is not going to be very robust to state machine >>> changes. And since it is hidden away in a driver, it is going to be >>> forgotten about. You might want to think about making it more robust. >> >> I marked the patch as RFC because I would like input on how to implement >> this properly. Note that since the regulator supplies the magnetics, which >> might be shared between multiple ports with different PHYs, I don't think >> this code should even be in the PHY driver, but somewhere else -- but I >> don't know where. > > Being shared should not be a problem. The regulator API does reference > counting. Any one driver turning the regulator on will enable it. But > it will not be turned off until all the drivers disable it after > enabling it. But that also means you need to balance the calls to > regulator_enable() and regulator_disable(). > > If for whatever reason this function is called for PHY_HALTED more > times than for PHY_NOLINK, the counter can go negative, and bad things > would happen. So i would actually had a bool to smsc_phy_priv > indicating if the regulator has been enabled. And for each > phydev->state, decide if the regulator should be enabled, check if it > is enabled according to the bool, and enable it is not. Same with > states which indicate it should be disabled. The code is then not > dependent on specific transitions, but on actual states. That should > be more robust to changes. > > You also need to think about this regulator being shared. Say some > other PHY has enabled the regulator. phy_start() might be able to skip > PHY_NOLINK state and so this PHY never calls regulator_enable(). If > that other PHY is then configured down, it will disable the regulator, > and this PHY looses link. That probably is enough for this PHY to > re-enable the regulator, but it is not ideal. I think you are completely missing the point, the regulator is just an implementation detail. I am more interested in the implementation itself, which I suspect should not even be in the PHY driver, but rather somewhere closer to the core (where?), because the supply to magnetics is not part of the PHY, any PHY can be used with magnetics which need a regulator.
diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/smsc.c b/drivers/net/phy/smsc.c index 33372756a451..edc2bd7d8100 100644 --- a/drivers/net/phy/smsc.c +++ b/drivers/net/phy/smsc.c @@ -20,6 +20,9 @@ #include <linux/of.h> #include <linux/phy.h> #include <linux/netdevice.h> +#include <linux/regulator/of_regulator.h> +#include <linux/regulator/driver.h> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> #include <linux/smscphy.h> /* Vendor-specific PHY Definitions */ @@ -46,6 +49,7 @@ static struct smsc_hw_stat smsc_hw_stats[] = { struct smsc_phy_priv { bool energy_enable; struct clk *refclk; + struct regulator *vddio; }; static int smsc_phy_ack_interrupt(struct phy_device *phydev) @@ -288,6 +292,20 @@ static void smsc_get_stats(struct phy_device *phydev, data[i] = smsc_get_stat(phydev, i); } +static void smsc_link_change_notify(struct phy_device *phydev) +{ + struct smsc_phy_priv *priv = phydev->priv; + + if (!priv->vddio) + return; + + if (phydev->state == PHY_HALTED) + regulator_disable(priv->vddio); + + if (phydev->state == PHY_NOLINK) + regulator_enable(priv->vddio); +} + static void smsc_phy_remove(struct phy_device *phydev) { struct smsc_phy_priv *priv = phydev->priv; @@ -309,6 +327,10 @@ static int smsc_phy_probe(struct phy_device *phydev) priv->energy_enable = true; + priv->vddio = devm_regulator_get_optional(&phydev->mdio.dev, "vddio"); + if (IS_ERR(priv->vddio)) + return PTR_ERR(priv->vddio); + if (of_property_read_bool(of_node, "smsc,disable-energy-detect")) priv->energy_enable = false; @@ -432,7 +454,7 @@ static struct phy_driver smsc_phy_driver[] = { .name = "SMSC LAN8710/LAN8720", /* PHY_BASIC_FEATURES */ - + .link_change_notify = smsc_link_change_notify, .probe = smsc_phy_probe, .remove = smsc_phy_remove,
Add support for controlling regulator powering the magnetics. In case the interface is down, it is possible to save considerable power by turning the regulator supplying the magnetics off. Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com> --- drivers/net/phy/smsc.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)