From: Robert Hancock <hidden> Date: 2021-02-13 02:20:25
Updates to the Broadcom PHY driver related to use with copper SFP modules.
Changed since v1:
-Reversed conditional to reduce indentation
-Added missing setting of MII_BCM54XX_AUXCTL_MISC_WREN in
MII_BCM54XX_AUXCTL_SHDWSEL_MISC register
Robert Hancock (2):
net: phy: broadcom: Set proper 1000BaseX/SGMII interface mode for
BCM54616S
net: phy: broadcom: Do not modify LED configuration for SFP module
PHYs
drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
include/linux/brcmphy.h | 4 ++
2 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
--
2.27.0
@@ -64,6 +64,64 @@ static int bcm54612e_config_init(struct phy_device *phydev)return0;}+staticintbcm54616s_config_init(structphy_device*phydev)+{+intrc,val;++if(phydev->interface!=PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_SGMII&&+phydev->interface!=PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_1000BASEX)+return0;++/* Ensure proper interface mode is selected. */+/* Disable RGMII mode */+val=bcm54xx_auxctl_read(phydev,MII_BCM54XX_AUXCTL_SHDWSEL_MISC);+if(val<0)+returnval;+val&=~MII_BCM54XX_AUXCTL_SHDWSEL_MISC_RGMII_EN;+val|=MII_BCM54XX_AUXCTL_MISC_WREN;+rc=bcm54xx_auxctl_write(phydev,MII_BCM54XX_AUXCTL_SHDWSEL_MISC,+val);+if(rc<0)+returnrc;++/* Select 1000BASE-X register set (primary SerDes) */+val=bcm_phy_read_shadow(phydev,BCM54XX_SHD_MODE);+if(val<0)+returnval;+val|=BCM54XX_SHD_MODE_1000BX;+rc=bcm_phy_write_shadow(phydev,BCM54XX_SHD_MODE,val);+if(rc<0)+returnrc;++/* Power down SerDes interface */+rc=phy_set_bits(phydev,MII_BMCR,BMCR_PDOWN);+if(rc<0)+returnrc;++/* Select proper interface mode */+val&=~BCM54XX_SHD_INTF_SEL_MASK;+val|=phydev->interface==PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_SGMII?+BCM54XX_SHD_INTF_SEL_SGMII:+BCM54XX_SHD_INTF_SEL_GBIC;+rc=bcm_phy_write_shadow(phydev,BCM54XX_SHD_MODE,val);+if(rc<0)+returnrc;++/* Power up SerDes interface */+rc=phy_clear_bits(phydev,MII_BMCR,BMCR_PDOWN);+if(rc<0)+returnrc;++/* Select copper register set */+val&=~BCM54XX_SHD_MODE_1000BX;+rc=bcm_phy_write_shadow(phydev,BCM54XX_SHD_MODE,val);+if(rc<0)+returnrc;++/* Power up copper interface */+returnphy_clear_bits(phydev,MII_BMCR,BMCR_PDOWN);+}+staticintbcm54xx_config_clock_delay(structphy_device*phydev){intrc,val;
@@ -283,15 +341,17 @@ static int bcm54xx_config_init(struct phy_device *phydev)bcm54xx_adjust_rxrefclk(phydev);-if(BRCM_PHY_MODEL(phydev)==PHY_ID_BCM54210E){+switch(BRCM_PHY_MODEL(phydev)){+casePHY_ID_BCM54210E:err=bcm54210e_config_init(phydev);-if(err)-returnerr;-}elseif(BRCM_PHY_MODEL(phydev)==PHY_ID_BCM54612E){+break;+casePHY_ID_BCM54612E:err=bcm54612e_config_init(phydev);-if(err)-returnerr;-}elseif(BRCM_PHY_MODEL(phydev)==PHY_ID_BCM54810){+break;+casePHY_ID_BCM54616S:+err=bcm54616s_config_init(phydev);+break;+casePHY_ID_BCM54810:/* For BCM54810, we need to disable BroadR-Reach function */val=bcm_phy_read_exp(phydev,BCM54810_EXP_BROADREACH_LRE_MISC_CTL);
@@ -299,9 +359,10 @@ static int bcm54xx_config_init(struct phy_device *phydev)err=bcm_phy_write_exp(phydev,BCM54810_EXP_BROADREACH_LRE_MISC_CTL,val);-if(err<0)-returnerr;+break;}+if(err)+returnerr;bcm54xx_phydsp_config(phydev);
@@ -385,7 +446,7 @@ static int bcm5481_config_aneg(struct phy_device *phydev)staticintbcm54616s_probe(structphy_device*phydev){-intval,intf_sel;+intval;val=bcm_phy_read_shadow(phydev,BCM54XX_SHD_MODE);if(val<0)
@@ -397,8 +458,7 @@ static int bcm54616s_probe(struct phy_device *phydev)*RGMII-1000Base-Xisproperlysupported,butRGMII-100Base-FX*supportisstillmissingasofnow.*/-intf_sel=(val&BCM54XX_SHD_INTF_SEL_MASK)>>1;-if(intf_sel==1){+if((val&BCM54XX_SHD_INTF_SEL_MASK)==BCM54XX_SHD_INTF_SEL_RGMII){val=bcm_phy_read_shadow(phydev,BCM54616S_SHD_100FX_CTRL);if(val<0)returnval;
From: Robert Hancock <hidden> Date: 2021-02-13 02:20:25
bcm54xx_config_init was modifying the PHY LED configuration to enable link
and activity indications. However, some SFP modules (such as Bel-Fuse
SFP-1GBT-06) have no LEDs but use the LED outputs to control the SFP LOS
signal, and modifying the LED settings will cause the LOS output to
malfunction. Skip this configuration for PHYs which are bound to an SFP
bus.
Signed-off-by: Robert Hancock <redacted>
---
drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
@@ -366,18 +367,25 @@ static int bcm54xx_config_init(struct phy_device *phydev)bcm54xx_phydsp_config(phydev);-/* Encode link speed into LED1 and LED3 pair (green/amber).+/* For non-SFP setups, encode link speed into LED1 and LED3 pair+*(green/amber).*AlsoflashthesetwoLEDsonactivity.Thismeansconfiguring*themforMULTICOLORandencodinglink/activityintothem.+*Don'tdothisfordevicesthatmaybeonanSFPmodule,since+*someoftheseusetheLEDoutputstocontroltheSFPLOSsignal,+*andchangingthesesettingswillcauseLOStomalfunction.*/-val=BCM5482_SHD_LEDS1_LED1(BCM_LED_SRC_MULTICOLOR1)|-BCM5482_SHD_LEDS1_LED3(BCM_LED_SRC_MULTICOLOR1);-bcm_phy_write_shadow(phydev,BCM5482_SHD_LEDS1,val);--val=BCM_LED_MULTICOLOR_IN_PHASE|-BCM5482_SHD_LEDS1_LED1(BCM_LED_MULTICOLOR_LINK_ACT)|-BCM5482_SHD_LEDS1_LED3(BCM_LED_MULTICOLOR_LINK_ACT);-bcm_phy_write_exp(phydev,BCM_EXP_MULTICOLOR,val);+if(!phydev->sfp_bus&&+(!phydev->attached_dev||!phydev->attached_dev->sfp_bus)){+val=BCM5482_SHD_LEDS1_LED1(BCM_LED_SRC_MULTICOLOR1)|+BCM5482_SHD_LEDS1_LED3(BCM_LED_SRC_MULTICOLOR1);+bcm_phy_write_shadow(phydev,BCM5482_SHD_LEDS1,val);++val=BCM_LED_MULTICOLOR_IN_PHASE|+BCM5482_SHD_LEDS1_LED1(BCM_LED_MULTICOLOR_LINK_ACT)|+BCM5482_SHD_LEDS1_LED3(BCM_LED_MULTICOLOR_LINK_ACT);+bcm_phy_write_exp(phydev,BCM_EXP_MULTICOLOR,val);+}return0;}
bcm54xx_config_init was modifying the PHY LED configuration to enable link
and activity indications. However, some SFP modules (such as Bel-Fuse
SFP-1GBT-06) have no LEDs but use the LED outputs to control the SFP LOS
signal, and modifying the LED settings will cause the LOS output to
malfunction. Skip this configuration for PHYs which are bound to an SFP
bus.
Signed-off-by: Robert Hancock <redacted>
From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk> Date: 2021-02-13 10:46:44
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 08:18:40PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
+ if (!phydev->sfp_bus &&
+ (!phydev->attached_dev || !phydev->attached_dev->sfp_bus)) {
First, do we want this to be repeated in every driver?
Second, are you sure this is the correct condition to be using for
this? phydev->sfp_bus is non-NULL when _this_ PHY has a SFP bus
connected to its fibre side, it will never be set for a PHY on a
SFP. The fact that it is non-NULL or NULL shouldn't have a bearing
on whether we configure the LED register.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> Date: 2021-02-13 16:50:20
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 08:18:40PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
bcm54xx_config_init was modifying the PHY LED configuration to enable link
and activity indications. However, some SFP modules (such as Bel-Fuse
SFP-1GBT-06) have no LEDs but use the LED outputs to control the SFP LOS
signal, and modifying the LED settings will cause the LOS output to
malfunction. Skip this configuration for PHYs which are bound to an SFP
bus.
I agree with Russell here. You need to add a quirk to sfp.c which
detects this specific SFP, and sets PHY flag before starting the PHY.
Andrew
From: Robert Hancock <hidden> Date: 2021-02-16 16:53:30
On Sat, 2021-02-13 at 10:45 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 08:18:40PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
quoted
+ if (!phydev->sfp_bus &&
+ (!phydev->attached_dev || !phydev->attached_dev->sfp_bus)) {
First, do we want this to be repeated in every driver?
Second, are you sure this is the correct condition to be using for
this? phydev->sfp_bus is non-NULL when _this_ PHY has a SFP bus
connected to its fibre side, it will never be set for a PHY on a
SFP. The fact that it is non-NULL or NULL shouldn't have a bearing
on whether we configure the LED register.
I think you're correct, the phydev->sfp_bus portion is probably not useful and
could be dropped. What we're really concerned about is whether this PHY is on
an SFP module or not. I'm not sure that a module-specific quirk makes sense
here since there are probably other models which have a similar design where
the LED outputs from the PHY are used for other purposes, and there's really no
benefit to playing with the LED outputs on SFP modules in any case, so it would
be safer to skip the LED reconfiguration for anything on an SFP. So we could
either have a condition for "!phydev->attached_dev || !phydev->attached_dev-
sfp_bus" here and anywhere else that needs a similar check, or we do something
different, like have a specific flag to indicate that this PHY is on an SFP
module? What do people think is best here?
--
Robert Hancock
Senior Hardware Designer, Calian Advanced Technologies
www.calian.com
From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk> Date: 2021-02-16 17:05:39
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 04:52:13PM +0000, Robert Hancock wrote:
On Sat, 2021-02-13 at 10:45 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 08:18:40PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
quoted
+ if (!phydev->sfp_bus &&
+ (!phydev->attached_dev || !phydev->attached_dev->sfp_bus)) {
First, do we want this to be repeated in every driver?
Second, are you sure this is the correct condition to be using for
this? phydev->sfp_bus is non-NULL when _this_ PHY has a SFP bus
connected to its fibre side, it will never be set for a PHY on a
SFP. The fact that it is non-NULL or NULL shouldn't have a bearing
on whether we configure the LED register.
I think you're correct, the phydev->sfp_bus portion is probably not useful and
could be dropped. What we're really concerned about is whether this PHY is on
an SFP module or not. I'm not sure that a module-specific quirk makes sense
here since there are probably other models which have a similar design where
the LED outputs from the PHY are used for other purposes, and there's really no
benefit to playing with the LED outputs on SFP modules in any case, so it would
be safer to skip the LED reconfiguration for anything on an SFP. So we could
either have a condition for "!phydev->attached_dev || !phydev->attached_dev-
quoted
sfp_bus" here and anywhere else that needs a similar check, or we do something
different, like have a specific flag to indicate that this PHY is on an SFP
module? What do people think is best here?
I don't think relying on phydev->attached_dev in any way is a good
idea, and I suspect a flag is going to be way better. One of the
problems is that phydev->dev_flags are PHY specific at the moment.
Not sure if we can do anything about that.
In the short term, at the very least, I think we should wrap whatever
test we use in a "phy_on_sfp(phydev)" helper so that we have a standard
helper for this.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
On 2/16/2021 9:04 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 04:52:13PM +0000, Robert Hancock wrote:
quoted
On Sat, 2021-02-13 at 10:45 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 08:18:40PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
quoted
+ if (!phydev->sfp_bus &&
+ (!phydev->attached_dev || !phydev->attached_dev->sfp_bus)) {
First, do we want this to be repeated in every driver?
Second, are you sure this is the correct condition to be using for
this? phydev->sfp_bus is non-NULL when _this_ PHY has a SFP bus
connected to its fibre side, it will never be set for a PHY on a
SFP. The fact that it is non-NULL or NULL shouldn't have a bearing
on whether we configure the LED register.
I think you're correct, the phydev->sfp_bus portion is probably not useful and
could be dropped. What we're really concerned about is whether this PHY is on
an SFP module or not. I'm not sure that a module-specific quirk makes sense
here since there are probably other models which have a similar design where
the LED outputs from the PHY are used for other purposes, and there's really no
benefit to playing with the LED outputs on SFP modules in any case, so it would
be safer to skip the LED reconfiguration for anything on an SFP. So we could
either have a condition for "!phydev->attached_dev || !phydev->attached_dev-
quoted
sfp_bus" here and anywhere else that needs a similar check, or we do something
different, like have a specific flag to indicate that this PHY is on an SFP
module? What do people think is best here?
I don't think relying on phydev->attached_dev in any way is a good
idea, and I suspect a flag is going to be way better. One of the
problems is that phydev->dev_flags are PHY specific at the moment.
Not sure if we can do anything about that.
I have some ideas on how we can improve that and hope to be able to post
something by the end of the week.
In the short term, at the very least, I think we should wrap whatever
test we use in a "phy_on_sfp(phydev)" helper so that we have a standard
helper for this.