On 26.02.2021 10:10, Daniel González Cabanelas wrote:
> El vie, 26 feb 2021 a las 8:13, Heiner Kallweit
> (<hkallwe...@gmail.com>) escribió:
>>
>> On 25.02.2021 23:28, Daniel González Cabanelas wrote:
>>> El jue, 25 feb 2021 a las 21:05, Heiner Kallweit
>>> (<hkallwe...@gmail.com>) escribió:
>>>>
>>>> On 25.02.2021 17:36, Daniel González Cabanelas wrote:
>>>>> El jue, 25 feb 2021 a las 8:22, Heiner Kallweit
>>>>> (<hkallwe...@gmail.com>) escribió:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25.02.2021 00:54, Daniel González Cabanelas wrote:
>>>>>>> El mié, 24 feb 2021 a las 23:01, Florian Fainelli
>>>>>>> (<f.faine...@gmail.com>) escribió:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2021 1:44 PM, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 24.02.2021 16:44, Daniel González Cabanelas wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The current bcm63xx_enet driver doesn't asign the internal phy IRQ.
>>>>>>>>>> As a
>>>>>>>>>> result of this it works in polling mode.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fix it using the phy_device structure to assign the platform IRQ.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tested under a BCM6348 board. Kernel dmesg before the patch:
>>>>>>>>>> Broadcom BCM63XX (1) bcm63xx_enet-0:01: attached PHY driver
>>>>>>>>>> [Broadcom
>>>>>>>>>> BCM63XX (1)] (mii_bus:phy_addr=bcm63xx_enet-0:01,
>>>>>>>>>> irq=POLL)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After the patch:
>>>>>>>>>> Broadcom BCM63XX (1) bcm63xx_enet-0:01: attached PHY driver
>>>>>>>>>> [Broadcom
>>>>>>>>>> BCM63XX (1)] (mii_bus:phy_addr=bcm63xx_enet-0:01,
>>>>>>>>>> irq=17)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pluging and uplugging the ethernet cable now generates interrupts
>>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>> PHY goes up and down as expected.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel González Cabanelas <dgcb...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> changes in V2:
>>>>>>>>>> - snippet moved after the mdiobus registration
>>>>>>>>>> - added missing brackets
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bcm63xx_enet.c | 13 +++++++++++--
>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bcm63xx_enet.c
>>>>>>>>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bcm63xx_enet.c
>>>>>>>>>> index fd876721316..dd218722560 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bcm63xx_enet.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bcm63xx_enet.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1818,10 +1818,19 @@ static int bcm_enet_probe(struct
>>>>>>>>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>>>>> * if a slave is not present on hw */
>>>>>>>>>> bus->phy_mask = ~(1 << priv->phy_id);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - if (priv->has_phy_interrupt)
>>>>>>>>>> + ret = mdiobus_register(bus);
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + if (priv->has_phy_interrupt) {
>>>>>>>>>> + phydev = mdiobus_get_phy(bus, priv->phy_id);
>>>>>>>>>> + if (!phydev) {
>>>>>>>>>> + dev_err(&dev->dev, "no PHY found\n");
>>>>>>>>>> + goto out_unregister_mdio;
>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> bus->irq[priv->phy_id] = priv->phy_interrupt;
>>>>>>>>>> + phydev->irq = priv->phy_interrupt;
>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - ret = mdiobus_register(bus);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You shouldn't have to set phydev->irq, this is done by
>>>>>>>>> phy_device_create().
>>>>>>>>> For this to work bus->irq[] needs to be set before calling
>>>>>>>>> mdiobus_register().
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes good point, and that is what the unchanged code does actually.
>>>>>>>> Daniel, any idea why that is not working?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Florian, I don't know. bus->irq[] has no effect, only assigning the
>>>>>>> IRQ through phydev->irq works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can resend the patch without the bus->irq[] line since it's
>>>>>>> pointless in this scenario.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's still an ugly workaround and a proper root cause analysis should be
>>>>>> done
>>>>>> first. I can only imagine that phydev->irq is overwritten in phy_probe()
>>>>>> because phy_drv_supports_irq() is false. Can you please check whether
>>>>>> phydev->irq is properly set in phy_device_create(), and if yes, whether
>>>>>> it's reset to PHY_POLL in phy_probe()?.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Heiner, I added some kernel prints:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ 2.712519] libphy: Fixed MDIO Bus: probed
>>>>> [ 2.721969] =======phy_device_create===========
>>>>> [ 2.726841] phy_device_create: dev->irq = 17
>>>>> [ 2.726841]
>>>>> [ 2.832620] =======phy_probe===========
>>>>> [ 2.836846] phy_probe: phydev->irq = 17
>>>>> [ 2.840950] phy_probe: phy_drv_supports_irq = 0,
>>>>> phy_interrupt_is_valid = 1
>>>>> [ 2.848267] phy_probe: phydev->irq = -1
>>>>> [ 2.848267]
>>>>> [ 2.854059] =======phy_probe===========
>>>>> [ 2.858174] phy_probe: phydev->irq = -1
>>>>> [ 2.862253] phy_probe: phydev->irq = -1
>>>>> [ 2.862253]
>>>>> [ 2.868121] libphy: bcm63xx_enet MII bus: probed
>>>>> [ 2.873320] Broadcom BCM63XX (1) bcm63xx_enet-0:01: attached PHY
>>>>> driver [Broadcom BCM63XX (1)] (mii_bus:phy_addr=bcm63xx_enet-0:01,
>>>>> irq=POLL)
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently using kernel 5.4.99. I still have no idea what's going on.
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks for debugging. This confirms my assumption that the interrupt
>>>> is overwritten in phy_probe(). I'm just scratching my head how
>>>> phy_drv_supports_irq() can return 0. In 5.4.99 it's defined as:
>>>>
>>>> static bool phy_drv_supports_irq(struct phy_driver *phydrv)
>>>> {
>>>> return phydrv->config_intr && phydrv->ack_interrupt;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> And that's the PHY driver:
>>>>
>>>> static struct phy_driver bcm63xx_driver[] = {
>>>> {
>>>> .phy_id = 0x00406000,
>>>> .phy_id_mask = 0xfffffc00,
>>>> .name = "Broadcom BCM63XX (1)",
>>>> /* PHY_BASIC_FEATURES */
>>>> .flags = PHY_IS_INTERNAL,
>>>> .config_init = bcm63xx_config_init,
>>>> .ack_interrupt = bcm_phy_ack_intr,
>>>> .config_intr = bcm63xx_config_intr,
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> So both callbacks are set. Can you extend your debugging and check
>>>> in phy_drv_supports_irq() which of the callbacks is missing?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi, both callbacks are missing on the first check. However on the next
>>> calls they're there.
>>>
>>> [ 2.263909] libphy: Fixed MDIO Bus: probed
>>> [ 2.273026] =======phy_device_create===========
>>> [ 2.277908] phy_device_create: dev->irq = 17
>>> [ 2.277908]
>>> [ 2.373104] =======phy_probe===========
>>> [ 2.377336] phy_probe: phydev->irq = 17
>>> [ 2.381445] phy_drv_supports_irq: phydrv->config_intr = 0,
>>> phydrv->ack_interrupt = 0
>>> [ 2.389554] phydev->irq = PHY_POLL;
>>> [ 2.393186] phy_probe: phydev->irq = -1
>>> [ 2.393186]
>>> [ 2.398987] =======phy_probe===========
>>> [ 2.403108] phy_probe: phydev->irq = -1
>>> [ 2.407195] phy_drv_supports_irq: phydrv->config_intr = 1,
>>> phydrv->ack_interrupt = 1
>>> [ 2.415314] phy_probe: phydev->irq = -1
>>> [ 2.415314]
>>> [ 2.421189] libphy: bcm63xx_enet MII bus: probed
>>> [ 2.426129] =======phy_connect===========
>>> [ 2.430410] phy_drv_supports_irq: phydrv->config_intr = 1,
>>> phydrv->ack_interrupt = 1
>>> [ 2.438537] phy_connect: phy_drv_supports_irq = 1
>>> [ 2.438537]
>>> [ 2.445284] Broadcom BCM63XX (1) bcm63xx_enet-0:01: attached PHY
>>> driver [Broadcom BCM63XX (1)] (mii_bus:phy_addr=bcm63xx_enet-0:01,
>>> irq=POLL)
>>>
>>
>> I'd like to understand why the phy_device is probed twice,
>> with which drivers it's probed.
>> Could you please add printing phydrv->name to phy_probe() ?
>>
>
> Hi Heiner, indeed there are two different probed devices. The B53
> switch driver is causing this issue.
>
> [ 2.269595] libphy: Fixed MDIO Bus: probed
> [ 2.278706] =======phy_device_create===========
> [ 2.283594] phy_device_create: dev->irq = 17
> [ 2.283594]
> [ 2.379554] =======phy_probe===========
> [ 2.383780] phy_probe: phydrv->name = Broadcom B53 (3)
Is this an out-of-tree driver? I can't find this string in any
DSA or PHY driver.
> [ 2.389235] phy_probe: phydev->irq = 17
> [ 2.393332] phy_drv_supports_irq: phydrv->config_intr = 0,
> phydrv->ack_interrupt = 0
> [ 2.401445] phydev->irq = PHY_POLL
> [ 2.405080] phy_probe: phydev->irq = -1
> [ 2.405080]
> [ 2.410878] =======phy_probe===========
> [ 2.414996] phy_probe: phydrv->name = Broadcom BCM63XX (1)
> [ 2.420791] phy_probe: phydev->irq = -1
> [ 2.424876] phy_drv_supports_irq: phydrv->config_intr = 1,
> phydrv->ack_interrupt = 1
> [ 2.432994] phy_probe: phydev->irq = -1
> [ 2.432994]
> [ 2.438862] libphy: bcm63xx_enet MII bus: probed
> [ 2.443809] =======phy_connect===========
> [ 2.448092] phy_drv_supports_irq: phydrv->config_intr = 1,
> phydrv->ack_interrupt = 1
> [ 2.456215] phy_connect: phy_drv_supports_irq = 1
> [ 2.456215]
> [ 2.462961] Broadcom BCM63XX (1) bcm63xx_enet-0:01: attached PHY
> driver [Broadcom BCM63XX (1)] (mii_bus:phy_addr=bcm63xx_enet-0:01,
> irq=POLL)
>
> The board has no switch, it's a driver for other boards in OpenWrt. I
> forgot it wasn't upstreamed:
> https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/tree/master/target/linux/generic/files/drivers/net/phy/b53
>
> I tested a kernel compiled without this driver, now the IRQ is
> detected as it should be:
>
> [ 2.270707] libphy: Fixed MDIO Bus: probed
> [ 2.279715] =======phy_device_create===========
> [ 2.284600] phy_device_create: dev->irq = 17
> [ 2.284600]
> [ 2.373763] =======phy_probe===========
> [ 2.377989] phy_probe: phydrv->name = Broadcom BCM63XX (1)
> [ 2.383803] phy_probe: phydev->irq = 17
> [ 2.387888] phy_drv_supports_irq: phydrv->config_intr = 1,
> phydrv->ack_interrupt = 1
> [ 2.396007] phy_probe: phydev->irq = 17
> [ 2.396007]
> [ 2.401877] libphy: bcm63xx_enet MII bus: probed
> [ 2.406820] =======phy_connect===========
> [ 2.411099] phy_drv_supports_irq: phydrv->config_intr = 1,
> phydrv->ack_interrupt = 1
> [ 2.419226] phy_connect: phy_drv_supports_irq = 1
> [ 2.419226]
> [ 2.429857] Broadcom BCM63XX (1) bcm63xx_enet-0:01: attached PHY
> driver [Broadcom BCM63XX (1)] (mii_bus:phy_addr=bcm63xx_enet-0:01,
> irq=17)
>
> Then, maybe this is an OpenWrt bug itself?
>
> Regards
> Daniel
>
>>
>>> I also added the prints to phy_connect.
>>>
>>>> Last but not least: Do you use a mainline kernel, or is it maybe
>>>> a modified downstream kernel? In the latter case, please check
>>>> in your kernel sources whether both callbacks are set.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's a modified kernel, and the the callbacks are set. BTW I also
>>> tested the kernel with no patches concerning to the ethernet driver.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> On which kernel version do you face this problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The kernel version 4.4 works ok. The minimum version where I found the
>>>>> problem were the kernel 4.9.111, now using 5.4. And 5.10 also tested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Florian
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
