Re: [PATCH net-next v3 03/13] net: phy: phy_caps: Move phy_speeds to phy_caps
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Date: 2025-02-28 16:10:43
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, lkml
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 03:55:28PM +0100, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Use the newly introduced link_capabilities array to derive the list of possible speeds when given a combination of linkmodes. As link_capabilities is indexed by speed, we don't have to iterate the whole phy_settings array. Signed-off-by: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com> --- drivers/net/phy/phy-caps.h | 3 +++ drivers/net/phy/phy-core.c | 15 --------------- drivers/net/phy/phy.c | 3 ++- drivers/net/phy/phy_caps.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/phy.h | 2 -- 5 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy-caps.h b/drivers/net/phy/phy-caps.h index 846d483269f6..f8cdfdb09242 100644 --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy-caps.h +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy-caps.h@@ -41,4 +41,7 @@ struct link_capabilities { void phy_caps_init(void); +size_t phy_caps_speeds(unsigned int *speeds, size_t size, + unsigned long *linkmodes); + #endif /* __PHY_CAPS_H */diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy-core.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy-core.c index b1c1670de23b..8533e57c3500 100644 --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy-core.c +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy-core.c@@ -339,21 +339,6 @@ phy_lookup_setting(int speed, int duplex, const unsigned long *mask, bool exact) } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(phy_lookup_setting); -size_t phy_speeds(unsigned int *speeds, size_t size, - unsigned long *mask) -{ - size_t count; - int i; - - for (i = 0, count = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(settings) && count < size; i++) - if (settings[i].bit < __ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_MASK_NBITS && - test_bit(settings[i].bit, mask) && - (count == 0 || speeds[count - 1] != settings[i].speed)) - speeds[count++] = settings[i].speed; - - return count; -} - static void __set_linkmode_max_speed(u32 max_speed, unsigned long *addr) { const struct phy_setting *p;diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c index 16ffc00b419c..3128df03feda 100644 --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c@@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ #include <net/sock.h> #include "phylib-internal.h" +#include "phy-caps.h" #define PHY_STATE_TIME HZ@@ -245,7 +246,7 @@ unsigned int phy_supported_speeds(struct phy_device *phy, unsigned int *speeds, unsigned int size) { - return phy_speeds(speeds, size, phy->supported); + return phy_caps_speeds(speeds, size, phy->supported); } /**diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy_caps.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy_caps.c index 367ca7110ddc..e5c716365b36 100644 --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy_caps.c +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy_caps.c@@ -76,3 +76,30 @@ void phy_caps_init(void) __set_bit(i, link_caps[capa].linkmodes); } } + +/** + * phy_caps_speeds() - Fill an array of supported SPEED_* values for given modes + * @speeds: Output array to store the speeds list into + * @size: Size of the output array + * @linkmodes: Linkmodes to get the speeds from + * + * Fills the speeds array with all possible speeds that can be achieved with + * the specified linkmodes. + * + * Returns: The number of speeds filled into the array. If the input array isn't + * big enough to store all speeds, fill it as much as possible. + */ +size_t phy_caps_speeds(unsigned int *speeds, size_t size, + unsigned long *linkmodes) +{ + size_t count; + int capa; + + for (capa = 0, count = 0; capa < __LINK_CAPA_MAX && count < size; capa++) { + if (linkmode_intersects(link_caps[capa].linkmodes, linkmodes) && + (count == 0 || speeds[count - 1] != link_caps[capa].speed)) + speeds[count++] = link_caps[capa].speed; + }
Having looked at several of these patches, there's a common pattern
emerging, which is we're walking over link_caps in either ascending
speed order or descending speed order. So I wonder whether it would
make sense to have:
#define for_each_link_caps_asc_speed(cap) \
for (cap = link_caps; cap < &link_caps[__LINK_CAPA_MAX]; cap++)
#define for_each_link_caps_desc_speed(cap) \
for (cap = &link_caps[__LINK_CAPA_MAX - 1]; cap >= link_caps; cap--)
for where iterating over in speed order is important. E.g. this would
make the above:
struct link_capabilities *lcap;
for_each_link_caps_asc_speed(lcap)
if (linkmode_intersects(lcap->linkmodes, linkmodes) &&
(count == 0 || speeds[count - 1] != lcap->speed)) {
speeds[count++] = lcap->speed;
if (count >= size)
break;
}
which helps to make it explicit that speeds[] is in ascending value
order.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!