Re: [PATCH net v2 2/2] net: dsa: mt7530: fix disabling EEE on failure on MT7531 and MT7988

[Arınç ÜNAL]

On 26.03.2024 12:02, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-03-21 at 19:29 +0300, Arınç ÜNAL via B4 Relay wrote:
> > From: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The MT7531_FORCE_EEE1G and MT7531_FORCE_EEE100 bits let the
> > PMCR_FORCE_EEE1G and PMCR_FORCE_EEE100 bits determine the 1G/100 EEE
> > abilities of the MAC. If MT7531_FORCE_EEE1G and MT7531_FORCE_EEE100 are
> > unset, the abilities are left to be determined by PHY auto polling.
> >
> > The commit 40b5d2f15c09 ("net: dsa: mt7530: Add support for EEE features")
> > made it so that the PMCR_FORCE_EEE1G and PMCR_FORCE_EEE100 bits are set on
> > mt753x_phylink_mac_link_up(). But it did not set the MT7531_FORCE_EEE1G and
> > MT7531_FORCE_EEE100 bits. Because of this, EEE will be enabled on the
> > switch MACs by polling the PHY, regardless of the result of phy_init_eee().
> >
> > Define these bits and add them to MT7531_FORCE_MODE which is being used by
> > the subdriver. With this, EEE will be prevented from being enabled on the
> > switch MACs when phy_init_eee() fails.
> >
> > Fixes: 40b5d2f15c09 ("net: dsa: mt7530: Add support for EEE features")
> > Signed-off-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> If I read the past discussion correctly, this is a potential issue
> found by code inspection and never producing problem in practice, am I
> correct?
>
> If so I think it will deserve a 3rd party tested-by tag or similar to
> go in.
>
> If nobody could provide such feedback in a little time, I suggest to
> drop this patch and apply only 1/2.

Whether a problem would happen in practice depends on when phy_init_eee()
fails, meaning it returns a negative non-zero code. I requested Russell to
review this patch to shed light on when phy_init_eee() would return a
negative non-zero code so we have an idea whether this patch actually fixes
a problem.

Arınç