Hi,
On 7/24/20 8:39 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
Otherwise the MDIO bus and its phy should be a
child of the nic/mac using it, with standardized behaviors/etc left up to
the OSPM when it comes to MDIO bus enumeration/etc.
Hi Jeremy
Could you be a bit more specific here please.
DT allows
macb0: ethernet@fffc4000 {
compatible = "cdns,at32ap7000-macb";
reg = <0xfffc4000 0x4000>;
interrupts = <21>;
phy-mode = "rmii";
local-mac-address = [3a 0e 03 04 05 06];
clock-names = "pclk", "hclk", "tx_clk";
clocks = <&clkc 30>, <&clkc 30>, <&clkc 13>;
ethernet-phy@1 {
reg = <0x1>;
reset-gpios = <&pioE 6 1>;
};
};
So the PHY is a direct child of the MAC. The MDIO bus is not modelled
at all. Although this is allowed, it is deprecated, because it results > in problems with advanced systems which have multiple different
children, and the need to differentiate them. So drivers are slowly
I don't think i'm suggesting that, because AFAIK in ACPI you would have
to specify the DEVICE() for mdio, in order to nest a further set of
phy's via _ADR(). I think in general what I was describing would look
more like what you have below. But..
migrating to always modelling the MDIO bus. In that case, the
phy-handle is always used to point to the PHY:
eth0: ethernet@522d0000 {
compatible = "socionext,synquacer-netsec";
reg = <0 0x522d0000 0x0 0x10000>, <0 0x10000000 0x0 0x10000>;
interrupts = <GIC_SPI 176 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
clocks = <&clk_netsec>;
clock-names = "phy_ref_clk";
phy-mode = "rgmii";
max-speed = <1000>;
max-frame-size = <9000>;
phy-handle = <&phy1>;
mdio {
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
phy1: ethernet-phy@1 {
compatible = "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22";
reg = <1>;
};
};
"mdio-handle" is just half of phy-handle.
What you seem to be say is that although we have defined a generic
solution for ACPI which should work in all cases, it is suggested to
not use it? What exactly are you suggesting in its place?
When you put it that way, what i'm saying sounds crazy.
In this case what are are doing isn't as clean as what you have
described above, its more like:
mdio: {
phy1: {}
phy2: {}
}
...
// somewhere else
dmac1: {
phy-handle = <&phy1>;
}
... //somewhere else
eth0: {
//another device talking to the mgmt controller
}
Which is special in a couple ways.
Lets rewind for a moment and say for ARM/ACPI, what we are talking about
are "edge/server class" devices (with RAS statements/etc) where the
expectation is that they will be running virtualized workloads using LTS
distros, or non linux OSes. DT/etc remains an option for networking
devices which are more "embedded", aren't SBSA, etc. So an Arm
based/ACPI machine should be more regular and share more in the way of
system architecture with other SBSA/SBBR/ACPI/etc machines than has been
the case for DT machines.
A concern is then how we punch networking devices into an arbitrary VM
in a standardized way using libvirt/whatever. If the networking device
doesn't look like a simple self contained memory mapped resource with an
IOMMU domain, I think everything becomes more complicated and you have
to start going down the path of special caseing the VM firmware beyond
how its done for self contained PCIe/SRIOV devices. The latter manage to
pull this all off with a PCIe id, and a couple BARs fed into the VM.
So, I would hope an ACPI nic representation is closer to just a minimal
resource list like:
eth0: {
compatible = "cdns,at32ap7000-macb";
reg = <0xfffc4000 0x4000>;
interrupts = <21>;
}
or in ACPI speak:
Device (ETH0)
{
Name (_HID, "CDNSXXX")
Method (_CRS, 0x0, Serialized)
{
Name (RBUF, ResourceTemplate ()
{
Memory32Fixed (ReadWrite, 0xfffc4000, 0x4000, )
Interrupt (ResourceConsumer, Level, ActiveHigh, Exclusive)
{
21
}
})
Return (RBUF)
}
}
(Plus methods for pwr mgmt/etc as needed, the iommu info comes from
another table).
Returning to the NXP part. They avoid the entirety of the above
discussion because all this MDIO/PHY mgmt is just feeding the data into
the mgmt controller, and the bits that are punched into the VM are
fairly standalone.
Anyway, I think this set is generally fine, I would like to see this
part working well with ACPI given its what we have available today. For
the future, we also need to continue pushing everyone towards common
hardware standards. One of the ways of doing this is having hardware
which can be automatically enumerated/configured. Suggesting that the
kernel has a recommended way of doing this which aids fragmentation
isn't what we are trying to achieve with ACPI. Hence my previous comment
that we should consider this an escape hatch rather than the last word
in how to describe networking on ACPI/SBSA platforms.
Thanks,
