lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next 10/11] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: remove EEE support
Date
Hi Andrew,

Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:17:18PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
>> The PHY's EEE settings are already accessed by the DSA layer through the
>> Marvell PHY driver and there is nothing to be done for switch's MACs.
>
> I'm confused, or missing something. Does not patch #1 mean that if the
> DSA driver does not have a set_eee function, we always return -ENODEV
> in slave.c?

If there is a PHY, phy_init_eee (if eee_enabled is true) and
phy_ethtool_set_eee is called. If there is a .set_eee op, it is
called. If both are absent, -ENODEV is returned.

> There might be nothing to configure here, but some of the switches do
> support EEE. So we need at least a NOP set_eee. Better still it should
> return -ENODEV for those switches which don't actually support EEE,
> and 0 for those that do?

As I explain in a commit message, I didn't want to make the EEE ops
mandatory, because it makes it impossible for the DSA layer to
distinguish whether the driver did not update the ethtool_eee structure
because there is nothing to do on the port's MAC side (e.g. mv88e6xxx or
qca8k) or if it returned EEE disabled. To avoid confusion, I prefered to
make the ops optional, making the phy_* calls enough in the first case.

That being said, if you don't share this point of view and prefer to
define an inline dsa_set_eee_noop() function, I don't mind, since this
allows the DSA layer to make the distinction.


Thanks,

Vivien

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-01 17:40    [W:0.059 / U:20.708 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site