Re: [RFC PATCH v3 net-next 2/6] net: phylink: introduce a generic method for querying PHY in-band autoneg capability

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:58:18AM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:19:21AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:50:34PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 12:03:22AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 09:48:28PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 12:31:16AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:22:19PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 09:14:42PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:

quoted

+static unsigned int phylink_fixup_inband_aneg(struct phylink *pl,
+					      struct phy_device *phy,
+					      unsigned int mode)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = phy_validate_inband_aneg(phy, pl->link_interface);
+	if (ret == PHY_INBAND_ANEG_UNKNOWN) {
+		phylink_dbg(pl,
+			    "PHY driver does not report in-band autoneg capability, assuming %s\n",
+			    phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) ? "true" : "false");
+
+		return mode;
+	}
+
+	if (phylink_autoneg_inband(mode) && !(ret & PHY_INBAND_ANEG_ON)) {
+		phylink_err(pl,
+			    "Requested in-band autoneg but driver does not support this, disabling it.\n");

If we add support to the BCM84881 driver to work with
phy_validate_inband_aneg(), then this will always return
PHY_INBAND_ANEG_OFF and never PHY_INBAND_ANEG_ON. Consequently,
this will always produce this "error". It is not an error in the
SFP case, but it is if firmware is misconfigured.

So, this needs better handling - we should not be issuing an error-
level kernel message for something that is "normal".

Is this better?

		phylink_printk(phy_on_sfp(phy) ? KERN_DEBUG : KERN_ERR, pl,
			       "Requested in-band autoneg but driver does not support this, disabling it.\n");

Ah, not sure whether that was a trick question or not, but
phylink_fixup_inband_aneg function does not get called for the SFP code
path, I even noted this in the commit message but forgot:

No it wasn't a trick question. I thought you were calling
phylink_fixup_inband_aneg() from phylink_sfp_config(), but I see now
that you don't. That's what happens when you try and rush to review.

How did I "rush to review" exactly? I waited for 24 days since the v2
for even a single review comment, with even a ping in between, before
resending the series largely unaltered, just with an extra patch appended.

FFS. Are you intentionally trying to misinterpret everything I say?
Who here is doing a review? You or me?

"That's what happens when you try and rush to review." is a form of
speech - clearly the "you" is not aimed at you Vladimir, but me.
Let's put this a different way.

I am blaming myself for rushing to review this last night.

Is that more clear for you?

Apologies for misinterpreting, even though that was still the only
interpretation I could give that would make logical sense.

I would encourage you to read up on "second-person self reference".
It's a thing in English since at least the 16th century through to
today, and also exists in other languages.

Why would you
rush to review an RFC in the middle of the night if it wasn't me who was
rushing you, and pinging earlier? And why mention it in the first place?

I think at this point I'm just going to give up for the rest of the
week looking at netdev patches. I really don't want this stress.
And it _IS_ extremely stressful dealing with netdev stuff.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!