On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 06:17:02PM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote: > On 2/20/24 18:06, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 05:52:36PM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote: > >> With SGMII and XFI, the PCS sits on the MAC's MDIO bus. So for SGMII and > >> XFI if we don't have any labels we can just assume the PCS handle is for > >> the right PCS. But for QSGMII the PCSs sit on another MAC's MDIO bus. So > >> we need to tell the MAC where to find the PCS. This means we need to > >> supply multiple PCSs to the MAC > > > > So how did the other Layerscape devices with the same SerDes, PCS and > > mEMAC manage to get by and support QSGMII without listing all possible > > PCSes in pcs-handle-names? :-/ DPAA2 has the exact same situation with > > the QSGMII PCS situated on the internal bus of another DPMAC. > > I'm not familiar with them. Take the LS1088A-RDB. It has 8 QSGMII ports (dpmac3-dpmac6 over one lane, dpmac7-dpmac10 over another lane). In fsl-ls1088a-rdb.dts, there are multiple references like this: - dpmac3, dpmac4, dpmac5, dpmac6 all have references to a PCS situated on dpmac3's MDIO bus. - dpmac7, dpmac8, dpmac9, dpmac10 all have references to a PCS situated on dpmac7's MDIO bus. No limitation there that I know of. It's not as if the pcs-handle has to be towards the internal MDIO bus of _that_ dpmac. > With DPAA we used to just try to configure the QSGMII PCSs on every > MAC's MDIO bus. This worked out since if you enabled all the MACs, the > right one would eventually configure the PCSs. But it also meant you > couldn't determine the link status (since you didn't know where your PCS > was). Yeah, the lack of link status reporting from the MAC's PCS is a true design limitation with the old fman_memac approach. But it's not either-or. It's not as if things can only be done like that or like you. See above. Each MAC can talk, through a single pcs-handle, to just its PCS, on whatever other bus it may be on. What is escaping me is the justification for _multiple_ pcs-handles. You accept that you need to have some components of the device tree defined by the board (phy-mode/phy-connection-type), but based on some philosophical notion, you maintain that all PCSes should be listed in the device tree, even if one board could not possibly make use of them all (and specifically not make use of those PCSes for which it cannot be hidden from software that they are distinct, see below). The argument doesn't make sense to me, sorry. > > It is unnecessary and buggy complexity, and it will only have to become > > worse when I add support for C73 backplane autoneg in lynx-pcs and the > > fman_memac driver, because I will need yet another PCS handle, this time > > not even one that represents a phy-mode in particular, but a PCS handle > > for C73 (with C73, the autoneg process determines the dynamic phy-mode). > > There are multiple physical PCSs there must also be multiple PCS > devices. Otherwise your software and hardware will get out of sync. "Must"? All the single-port-per-lane PCSes and all the multi-port-per-lane PCSes can be made to appear to software at the same internal MDIO address. So switching between the SGMII PCS and the 10GBASE-R PCS is never a problem, even if you don't know they're distinct. The only thing that's not possible with this simplification, and would thus justify pcs-handle-names, is switching between a single-port-per-lane PCS (like SGMII) and a multi-port-per-lane PCS (like QSGMII). But why would you want that? > If you don't want the complexity, then don't design hardware with multiple > PCSs connected to the same MAC. In case it wasn't clear, I was talking about unjustified software complexity where there were existing models to follow at the time of DPAA1's phylink conversion (i.e. DPAA2) which solved the same problems in a much simpler way. If by making these choices, you've solved design limitations that are unsolved with DPAA2, please let me know, I really want to know.
