On 08/27/2018 02:09 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 01:52:42PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:

quoted

On 08/27/2018 01:35 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

quoted

@@ -210,6 +228,17 @@
 			reg = <4>;
 		};
 
+		port at 5 {
+			label = "sfp";
+			phy-mode = "sgmii";
+			reg = <5>;
+			sfp = <&sfp>;
+			fixed-link {
+				speed = <1000>;
+				full-duplex;
+			};

Hi Florian

You might want to add a comment about why you are using fixed-link and
sgmii, which seems very odd. Is it even correct?

Probably not, this is kind of left over from before adding the sfp
phandle, but if I do remove it, and I can see the DSA slave network
device fail to initialize, likely because we destroy the PHYLINK instance.

AFAIR, when we talked about this with Russell, I did not see why we had
to comment out the following:

diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
index 962c4fd338ba..f3ae16dbf8d8 100644
--- a/net/dsa/slave.c
+++ b/net/dsa/slave.c

@@ -1227,7 +1227,7 @@ static int dsa_slave_phy_setup(struct net_device

*slave_dev)
                        netdev_err(slave_dev,
                                   "failed to connect to port %d: %d\n",
                                   dp->index, ret);
-                       phylink_destroy(dp->pl);
+                       //phylink_destroy(dp->pl);
                        return ret;
                }
        }

maybe you know?

Hi Florian

I didn't need anything like this for the mv88e6xxx. I had patches
merged in -rc1 to make SFF work connected to the mv88e6390. The DT
change was not merged, but it is here:

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/955635/

+					port at 9 {
+						reg = <9>;
+						label = "sff2";
+						phy-mode = "sgmii";
+						managed = "in-band-status";

						^=====

Yes that is what I was missing, thanks Andrew! Still not 100% sure why
having a "sfp" phandle is not enough, but I suppose there are
problematic cases like the ZII Devel Rev. B where we have a SFF and we
are not able to auto-negotiate the fiber connection.
-- 
Florian