Re: [PATCH] net: phy: broadcom: add support for BCM5221 phy

[Andrew Lunn]

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 11:53:22PM +0200, Giulio Benetti wrote:
> This patch adds the BCM5221 PHY support by reusing
> brcm_fet_config_intr() and brcm_fet_handle_interrupt() and
> implementing config_init()/suspend()/resume().
> 
> Sponsored by: Tekvox Inc.

That is a new tag. Maybe you should update
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst ?

> +static int bcm5221_config_init(struct phy_device *phydev)
> +{
> +	int reg, err, err2, brcmtest;
> +
> +	/* Reset the PHY to bring it to a known state. */
> +	err = phy_write(phydev, MII_BMCR, BMCR_RESET);
> +	if (err < 0)
> +		return err;
> +
> +	/* The datasheet indicates the PHY needs up to 1us to complete a reset,
> +	 * build some slack here.
> +	 */
> +	usleep_range(1000, 2000);
> +
> +	/* The PHY requires 65 MDC clock cycles to complete a write operation
> +	 * and turnaround the line properly.
> +	 *
> +	 * We ignore -EIO here as the MDIO controller (e.g.: mdio-bcm-unimac)
> +	 * may flag the lack of turn-around as a read failure. This is
> +	 * particularly true with this combination since the MDIO controller
> +	 * only used 64 MDC cycles. This is not a critical failure in this
> +	 * specific case and it has no functional impact otherwise, so we let
> +	 * that one go through. If there is a genuine bus error, the next read
> +	 * of MII_BRCM_FET_INTREG will error out.
> +	 */
> +	err = phy_read(phydev, MII_BMCR);
> +	if (err < 0 && err != -EIO)
> +		return err;

It is pretty normal to check the value of MII_BMCR and ensure that
BMCR_RESET has cleared. See phy_poll_reset(). It might not be needed,
if you trust the datasheet, but 802.3 C22 says it should clear.

> +	/* Enable auto MDIX */
> +	err = phy_clear_bits(phydev, BCM5221_AEGSR, BCM5221_AEGSR_MDIX_DIS);
> +	if (err < 0)
> +		return err;

It is better to set it based on phydev->mdix_ctrl.

> @@ -1288,6 +1431,7 @@ static struct mdio_device_id __maybe_unused broadcom_tbl[] = {
>  	{ PHY_ID_BCM53125, 0xfffffff0 },
>  	{ PHY_ID_BCM53128, 0xfffffff0 },
>  	{ PHY_ID_BCM89610, 0xfffffff0 },
> +	{ PHY_ID_BCM5221, 0xfffffff0 },

This table has some sort of sorting. I would put this new entry before
PHY_ID_BCM5241.

>  #define PHY_ID_BCM50610			0x0143bd60
>  #define PHY_ID_BCM50610M		0x0143bd70
>  #define PHY_ID_BCM5241			0x0143bc30
> +#define PHY_ID_BCM5221			0x004061e0

The value looks odd. Is the OUI correct? Is that a broadcom OUI?

    Andrew

---
pw-bot: cr