> @@ -946,6 +949,9 @@ static void lan743x_phy_link_status_change(struct 
> net_device *netdev)
>  {
>       struct lan743x_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev);
>       struct phy_device *phydev = netdev->phydev;
> +     struct device_node *phynode;
> +     phy_interface_t phyifc = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII;
> +     u32 data;
>  
>       phy_print_status(phydev);
>       if (phydev->state == PHY_RUNNING) {
> @@ -953,6 +959,48 @@ static void lan743x_phy_link_status_change(struct 
> net_device *netdev)
>               int remote_advertisement = 0;
>               int local_advertisement = 0;
>  
> +             /* check if a fixed-link is defined in device-tree */
> +             phynode = of_node_get(adapter->pdev->dev.of_node);
> +             if (phynode && of_phy_is_fixed_link(phynode)) {

Hi Roelof

The whole point for fixed link is that it looks like a PHY. You should
not need to care if it is a real PHY or a fixed link.


> +                     /* Configure MAC to fixed link parameters */
> +                     data = lan743x_csr_read(adapter, MAC_CR);
> +                     /* Disable auto negotiation */
> +                     data &= ~(MAC_CR_ADD_ | MAC_CR_ASD_);

Why does the MAC care about autoneg? In general, all the MAC needs to
know is the speed and duplex.

> +                     /* Set duplex mode */
> +                     if (phydev->duplex)
> +                             data |= MAC_CR_DPX_;
> +                     else
> +                             data &= ~MAC_CR_DPX_;
> +                     /* Set bus speed */
> +                     switch (phydev->speed) {
> +                     case 10:
> +                             data &= ~MAC_CR_CFG_H_;
> +                             data &= ~MAC_CR_CFG_L_;
> +                             break;
> +                     case 100:
> +                             data &= ~MAC_CR_CFG_H_;
> +                             data |= MAC_CR_CFG_L_;
> +                             break;
> +                     case 1000:
> +                             data |= MAC_CR_CFG_H_;
> +                             data |= MAC_CR_CFG_L_;
> +                             break;
> +                     }

The current code is unusual, in that it uses
phy_ethtool_get_link_ksettings(). That should do the right thing with
a fixed-link PHY, although i don't know if anybody uses it like
this. So in theory, the current code should take care of duplex, flow
control, and speed for you. Just watch out for bug/missing features in
fixed link.


> +                     /* Set interface mode */
> +                     of_get_phy_mode(phynode, &phyifc);
> +                     if (phyifc == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII ||
> +                         phyifc == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_ID ||
> +                         phyifc == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_RXID ||
> +                         phyifc == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_TXID)
> +                             /* RGMII */
> +                             data &= ~MAC_CR_MII_EN_;
> +                     else
> +                             /* GMII */
> +                             data |= MAC_CR_MII_EN_;
> +                     lan743x_csr_write(adapter, MAC_CR, data);
> +             }
> +             of_node_put(phynode);

It is normal to do of_get_phy_mode when connecting to the PHY, and
store the value in the private structure. This is also not specific to
fixed link.

There is also a helper you can use phy_interface_mode_is_rgmii().

> +
>               memset(&ksettings, 0, sizeof(ksettings));
>               phy_ethtool_get_link_ksettings(netdev, &ksettings);
>               local_advertisement =
> @@ -974,6 +1022,8 @@ static void lan743x_phy_close(struct lan743x_adapter 
> *adapter)
>  
>       phy_stop(netdev->phydev);
>       phy_disconnect(netdev->phydev);
> +     if (of_phy_is_fixed_link(adapter->pdev->dev.of_node))
> +             of_phy_deregister_fixed_link(adapter->pdev->dev.of_node);
>       netdev->phydev = NULL;
>  }
>  
> @@ -982,18 +1032,44 @@ static int lan743x_phy_open(struct lan743x_adapter 
> *adapter)
>       struct lan743x_phy *phy = &adapter->phy;
>       struct phy_device *phydev;
>       struct net_device *netdev;
> +     struct device_node *phynode = NULL;
> +     phy_interface_t phyifc = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII;
>       int ret = -EIO;

netdev uses reverse christmas tree, meaning the lines should be
sorted, longest first, getting shorter.

>  
>       netdev = adapter->netdev;
> -     phydev = phy_find_first(adapter->mdiobus);
> -     if (!phydev)
> -             goto return_error;
>  
> -     ret = phy_connect_direct(netdev, phydev,
> -                              lan743x_phy_link_status_change,
> -                              PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII);
> -     if (ret)
> -             goto return_error;
> +     /* check if a fixed-link is defined in device-tree */
> +     phynode = of_node_get(adapter->pdev->dev.of_node);
> +     if (phynode && of_phy_is_fixed_link(phynode)) {
> +             netdev_dbg(netdev, "fixed-link detected\n");

This is something which is useful during debug. But once it works can
be removed.

> +             ret = of_phy_register_fixed_link(phynode);
> +             if (ret) {
> +                     netdev_err(netdev, "cannot register fixed PHY\n");
> +                     goto return_error;
> +             }
> +
> +             of_get_phy_mode(phynode, &phyifc);
> +             phydev = of_phy_connect(netdev, phynode,
> +                                     lan743x_phy_link_status_change,
> +                                     0, phyifc);
> +             if (!phydev)
> +                     goto return_error;
> +     } else {
> +             phydev = phy_find_first(adapter->mdiobus);
> +             if (!phydev)
> +                     goto return_error;
> +
> +             ret = phy_connect_direct(netdev, phydev,
> +                                      lan743x_phy_link_status_change,
> +                                      PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII);
> +             /* Note: We cannot use phyifc here because this would be SGMII
> +              * on a standard PC.
> +              */

I don't understand this comment.

Reply via email to