On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 07:52:23PM +0000, Daniel Golle wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 06:55:50PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 01:45:17AM +0000, Daniel Golle wrote:
> > > @@ -516,6 +538,21 @@ static struct phylink_pcs *mtk_mac_select_pcs(struct phylink_config *config,
> > > struct mtk_eth *eth = mac->hw;
> > > unsigned int sid;
> > >
> > > + if (mtk_is_netsys_v3_or_greater(eth)) {
> > > + switch (interface) {
> > > + case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_1000BASEX:
> > > + case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_2500BASEX:
> > > + case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_SGMII:
> > > + return mtk_pcs_lynxi_select_pcs(mac->sgmii_pcs_of_node, interface);
> > > + case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_5GBASER:
> > > + case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_10GBASER:
> > > + case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_USXGMII:
> > > + return mtk_usxgmii_select_pcs(mac->usxgmii_pcs_of_node, interface);
> >
> > From what I can see, neither of these two "select_pcs" methods that
> > you're calling makes any use of the "interface" you pass to them.
> > I'm not sure what they _could_ do with it either, given that what
> > you're effectively doing here is getting the phylink_pcs structure from
> > the driver, and each one only has a single phylink_pcs.
>
> Yes, you are right, the interface parameter isn't used, I will drop
> it from both mtk_*_select_pcs() prototypes.
>
> In the long run we may want something like
> struct phylink_pcs *of_pcs_get(struct device_node *np, phy_interface_t interface)
> provided by a to-be-built drivers/net/pcs/core.c...
Again... it's not as simple as that. As soon as we get into the
situation that some _other_ driver becomes responsible for providing
the struct phylink_pcs pointer, we _then_ need to have some way of
dealing with that device going away.
By that I mean that the memory pointed to returned from such a function
that you are proposing above could be freed - or worse could be unmapped
from the kernel address space, and the same goes for the operations
structure as well - even more so if the "ops" are part of module data
and the module is unloaded.
As I know how these discussions go (it's not my first time bringing up
these kinds of multi-driver interations), no, locking the module into
memory doesn't work, and shows a lack of a full understanding of the
problem.
We need to have a way that when a PCS device is removed, that is
propagated up the management levels and causes the PCS to be gracefully
removed from the network driver (in other words, from phylink).
I won't accept a hack that sticky-plasters around the problem - not for
code that I am involved in actively maintaining - and sticky-plastering
around this class of problem seems to happen all too often in the
kernel.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
