On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:50:17PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 06:33:40PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Given the current code, you cannot. Now we understand the
> > requirements, we can come up with some ideas how to do this properly.
>
> Okay, I've been a little quiet because of sorting out the ARM tree
> for merging with Linus (now done) and I've been working on a solution
> to this problem.
>
> The good news is, I have an implementation in phylink to use the sync
> status reported from a PCS, and to appropriately enable sync status
> reporting. I'm quite nervous about having that enabled as a matter of
> routine as I've seen some Marvell hardware end up with interrupt storms
> from it - presumably due to noise pickup on the serdes lines being
> interpreted as an intermittently valid signal.
Hi Russell
I have seen similar with an SFP without link. I think squelch is
optional, so noise gets passed through, which is enough to get and
loose sync.
I think we probably need to only enable the interrupt when the LOS
signal indicates there is at least some power coming into the SFP.
> However, I think we need to think about:
> 1) how we classify Thomas' problem - does it count as a regression
> given that support for his platform is not part of mainline, and
> the use of in-band-status in his unreviewed DT is clearly incorrect?
I would say no, it is not a regression.
> 2) if we deem it to be a regression, then how do we intend to solve
> this for stable kernels?
I think this new code should go into net-next, when it opens. I
suspect it is going to be a big change, once we consider LOS.
Andrew
