Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ethtool: provide UAPI for PHY master/slave configuration.

From: Andrew Lunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 16:32:39 +0200

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:11:45AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:57:39PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
> > > index c8b0c34030d32..d5edf2bc40e43 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
> > > @@ -604,6 +604,7 @@ struct phy_device *phy_device_create(struct mii_bus *bus, int addr, u32 phy_id,
> > >  	dev->asym_pause = 0;
> > >  	dev->link = 0;
> > >  	dev->interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII;
> > > +	dev->master_slave = PORT_MODE_UNKNOWN;
> > 
> > phydev->master_slave is how we want the PHY to be configured. I don't
> > think PORT_MODE_UNKNOWN makes any sense in that contest. 802.3 gives
> > some defaults. 9.12 should be 0, meaning manual master/slave
> > configuration is disabled. The majority of linux devices are end
> > systems. So we should default to a single point device. So i would
> > initialise PORT_MODE_SLAVE, or whatever we end up calling that.
> 
> I'm not sure that is a good idea given that we use phylib to drive
> the built-in PHYs in DSA switches, which ought to prefer master mode
> via the "is a multiport device" bit.

O.K. So i assume you mean we should read from the PHY at probe time
what it is doing, in order to initialise dev->master_slave?

I would be happy with that.

  Andrew