+ Woojung, UNGLinuxDriver

On 6/1/23 11:48 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

I was planning to for the Broadcom drivers since those I can test.
But I could do it across the board if that is preferred.

quoted

quoted

Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justin.chen@broadcom.com>
---
   net/ethtool/ioctl.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/ethtool/ioctl.c b/net/ethtool/ioctl.c
index 6bb778e10461..80f456f83db0 100644
--- a/net/ethtool/ioctl.c
+++ b/net/ethtool/ioctl.c

@@ -1436,15 +1436,25 @@ static int ethtool_get_wol(struct

net_device *dev, char __user *useraddr)
   static int ethtool_set_wol(struct net_device *dev, char
__user *useraddr)
   {
-    struct ethtool_wolinfo wol;
+    struct ethtool_wolinfo wol, cur_wol;
       int ret;
-    if (!dev->ethtool_ops->set_wol)
+    if (!dev->ethtool_ops->get_wol || !dev->ethtool_ops->set_wol)
           return -EOPNOTSUPP;

Are there cases where (in-tree) drivers provide set_wol byt not get_wol?
If so, does this break their set_wol support?

My original thought was to match netlink set wol behavior. So
drivers that do that won't work with netlink set_wol right now. I'll
skim around to see if any drivers do this. But I would reckon this
should be a driver fix.

Thanks,
Justin

I see a driver at drivers/net/phy/microchip.c. But this is a phy driver
set_wol hook.

That part of the driver appears to be dead code. It attempts to pretend to
support Wake-on-LAN, but it does not do any specific programming of wake-up
filters, nor does it implement get_wol. It also does not make use of the
recently introduced PHY_ALWAYS_CALL_SUSPEND flag.

When it is time to determine whether to suspend the PHY or not, eventually
phy_suspend() will call phy_ethtool_get_wol(). Since no get_wol is
implemented, the wol.wolopts will remain zero, therefore we will just
suspend the PHY.

I suspect this was added to work around MAC drivers that may forcefully try
to suspend the PHY, but that should not even be possible these days.

I would just remove that logic from microchip.c entirely.

The Microchip developers are reasonably responsive. So we should Cc:
them.

	Andrew