On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 01:41:13PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 9/18/2022 12:13 PM, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 01:40:05PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > > I've finally traced what has happened. I've double checked and indeed
> > > the 1758bde2e4aa commit fixed the issue on next-20220516 kernel and as
> > > such it has been merged to linus tree. Then the commit 744d23c71af3
> > > ("net: phy: Warn about incorrect mdio_bus_phy_resume() state") has been
> > > merged to linus tree, which triggers a new warning during the
> > > suspend/resume cycle with smsc95xx driver. Please note, that the
> > > smsc95xx still works fine regardless that warning. However it look that
> > > the commit 1758bde2e4aa only hide a real problem, which the commit
> > > 744d23c71af3 warns about.
> > >
> > > Probably a proper fix for smsc95xx driver is to call phy_stop/start
> > > during suspend/resume cycle, like in similar patches for other drivers:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220825023951.3220-1-f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > No, smsc95xx.c relies on mdio_bus_phy_{suspend,resume}() and there's
> > no need to call phy_{stop,start}() >
> > 744d23c71af3 was flawed and 6dbe852c379f has already fixed a portion
> > of the fallout.
> >
> > However the WARN() condition still seems too broad and causes false
> > positives such as in your case. In particular, mdio_bus_phy_suspend()
> > may leave the device in PHY_UP state, so that's a legal state that
> > needs to be exempted from the WARN().
>
> How is that a legal state when the PHY should be suspended? Even if we are
> interrupt driven, the state machine should be stopped, does not mean that
> Wake-on-LAN or other activity interrupts should be disabled.
mdio_bus_phy_suspend()
phy_stop_machine()
phydev->state = PHY_UP # if (phydev->state >= PHY_UP)
So apparently PHY_UP is a legal state for a suspended PHY.
> > Does the issue still appear even after 6dbe852c379f?
> >
> > If it does, could you test whether exempting PHY_UP silences the
> > gratuitous WARN splat? I.e.:
>
> If you allow PHY_UP, then the warning becomes effectively useless, so I
> don't believe this is quite what you want to do here.
Hm, maybe the WARN() should be dropped altogether?
Thanks,
Lukas
