On 12.09.2023 22:34, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 10:23:51PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:The phylink bindings for user ports I ended up making by looking up the existing devicetrees are different than the phylink bindings for the shared (CPU and DSA) ports currently enforced on all switches. My phylink bindings for user ports: allOf: - anyOf: - required: [ fixed-link ] - required: [ phy-handle ] - required: [ managed ] - if: required: [ fixed-link ] then: not: required: [ managed ]Right, it should have been anyOf and not oneOf.. my mistake. It is a bug which should be fixed. It's the same phylink that gets used in both cases, user ports and shared ports :)
One more thing, I don't recall phy-mode being required to be defined for user ports as it will default to GMII. I don't believe this is the same case for shared ports so phy-mode is required only for them?
The phylink bindings for shared ports enforced on all switches on dsa-port.yaml: allOf: - required: - phy-mode - oneOf: - required: - fixed-link - required: - phy-handle - required: - managed Here's what I understand: - For switches in dsa_switches_apply_workarounds[] - Enforce the latter for shared ports. - Enforce the former for user ports. - For switches not in dsa_switches_apply_workarounds[] - Enforce the former for all ports.No, no. We enforce the dt-schema regardless of switch presence in dsa_switches_apply_workarounds[], to encourage users to fix device trees (those who run schema validation). The kernel workaround consists in doing something (skipping phylink) for the device trees where the schema warns on shared ports. But there should be a single sub-schema for validating phylink bindings, whatever port kind it is.
Hmm, like writing phylink.yaml and then referring to it under the port pattern node? This could prevent a lot of repetition. Arınç
