Message ID | 20190817191452.16716-1-marek.behun@nic.cz |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | mv88e6xxx: setting 2500base-x mode for CPU/DSA port in dts | expand |
Hi Marek, On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 21:14:48 +0200, Marek Behún <marek.behun@nic.cz> wrote: > Hi, > > here is another proposal for supporting setting 2500base-x mode for > CPU/DSA ports in device tree correctly. > > The changes from v1 are that instead of adding .port_setup() and > .port_teardown() methods to the DSA operations struct we instead, for > CPU/DSA ports, call dsa_port_enable() from dsa_port_setup(), but only > after the port is registered (and required phylink/devlink structures > exist). > > The .port_enable/.port_disable methods are now only meant to be used > for user ports, when the slave interface is brought up/down. This > proposal changes that in such a way that these methods are also called > for CPU/DSA ports, but only just after the switch is set up (and just > before the switch is tore down). > > If we went this way, we would have to patch the other DSA drivers to > check if user port is being given in their respective .port_enable > and .port_disable implmentations. > > What do you think about this? This looks much better. Let me pass through all patches of this RFC so that I can include bits I would like to see in your next series. Thanks, Vivien
Hi Marek, On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 15:50:25 -0400, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com> wrote: > > here is another proposal for supporting setting 2500base-x mode for > > CPU/DSA ports in device tree correctly. > > > > The changes from v1 are that instead of adding .port_setup() and > > .port_teardown() methods to the DSA operations struct we instead, for > > CPU/DSA ports, call dsa_port_enable() from dsa_port_setup(), but only > > after the port is registered (and required phylink/devlink structures > > exist). > > > > The .port_enable/.port_disable methods are now only meant to be used > > for user ports, when the slave interface is brought up/down. This > > proposal changes that in such a way that these methods are also called > > for CPU/DSA ports, but only just after the switch is set up (and just > > before the switch is tore down). > > > > If we went this way, we would have to patch the other DSA drivers to > > check if user port is being given in their respective .port_enable > > and .port_disable implmentations. > > > > What do you think about this? > > This looks much better. Let me pass through all patches of this RFC so that > I can include bits I would like to see in your next series. I went ahead and sent a series which enables and disables all ports in DSA, I hope you don't mind. You can now send a single patch on top of it focusing on the 2500base-x issue with all the details. Thank you, Vivien