Hi Rob, On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 10:58:37 -0500 Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 03:47:40PM +0200, Herve Codina wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This series add support for SFPs ports available on the LAN966x PCI > > device. In order to have the SFPs supported, additional devices are > > needed such as clock controller and I2C. > > > > As a reminder, the LAN966x PCI device driver use a device-tree overlay > > to describe devices available on the PCI board. Adding support for SFPs > > ports consists in adding more devices in the already existing > > device-tree overlay. > > > > With those devices added, the device-tree overlay is more complex and > > some consumer/supplier relationship are needed in order to remove > > devices in correct order when the LAN966x PCI driver is removed. > > > > Those links are typically provided by fw_devlink and we faced some > > issues with fw_devlink and overlays. > > > > This series gives the big picture related to the SFPs support from > > fixing issues to adding new devices. Of course, it can be split if > > needed. > > > > The first part of the series (patch 1, 2 and 3) fixes fw_devlink when it > > is used with overlay. Patches 1 and 3 were previously sent by Saravana > > [0]. I just rebased them on top of v6.15-rc1 and added patch 2 in order > > to take into account feedback received on the series sent by Saravana. > > > > Those modification were not sufficient in our case and so, on top of > > that, patch 4 and 5 fix some more issues related to fw_devlink. > > > > Patches 6 to 12 introduce and use fw_devlink_set_device() in already > > existing code. > > > > Patches 13 and 14 are related also to fw_devlink but specific to PCI and > > the device-tree nodes created during enumeration. > > > > Patches 15, 15 and 17 are related fw_devlink too but specific to I2C > > muxes. Patches purpose is to correctly set a link between an adapter > > supplier and its consumer. Indeed, an i2c mux adapter's parent is not > > the i2c mux supplier but the adapter the i2c mux is connected to. Adding > > a new link between the adapter supplier involved when i2c muxes are used > > avoid a freeze observed during device removal. > > > > Patch 18 adds support for fw_delink on x86. fw_devlink is needed to have > > the consumer/supplier relationship between devices in order to ensure a > > correct device removal order. Adding fw_devlink support for x86 has been > > tried in the past but was reverted [1] because it broke some systems. > > Instead of enabling fw_devlink on *all* x86 system or on *all* x86 > > system except on those where it leads to issue, enable it only on system > > where it is needed. > > > > Patches 19 and 20 allow to build clock and i2c controller used by the > > LAN966x PCI device when the LAN966x PCI device is enabled. > > > > Patches 21 to 25 are specific to the LAN966x. They touch the current > > dtso, split it in dtsi/dtso files, rename the dtso and improve the > > driver to allow easier support for other boards. > > > > The next patch (patch 26) update the LAN966x device-tree overlay itself > > to have the SPF ports and devices they depends on described. > > > > The last two patches (patches 27 and 28) sort the existing drivers in > > the needed driver list available in the Kconfig help and add new drivers > > in this list keep the list up to date with the devices described in the > > device-tree overlay. > > > > Once again, this series gives the big picture and can be split if > > needed. Let me know. > > Please suggest how you think this should get merged? There's 8 > maintainer trees involved here. Some parts can be merged independently? > We need to spread over 2 cycles? Greg just takes it all? > > Rob I will add this information in the next iteration. I think, the merge strategy could be the following: - patches 1 to 14 could be merged by driver core maintainers in cycle N - patches 15 to 17 and 20 could be merged by I2C maintainers in cycle N without any dependency issues against other patches. - patch 18 could be merged by OF maintainers in cycle N without any dependency issues - patch 19 could be merged by clock maintainers in cycle N without any dependency issues. - patch 21 to 25 could be merged by misc maintainers in cycle N without any dependency issues. - patch 26 to 28, even if there is no compilation dependencies with other patches, they need the other patches applied to have a working system and so they could be merged in cycle N+1. Also, as the big picture and the goal of this series has been shown, I can extract patches from this series and send them alone depending on maintainers preferences. Maintainers, just tell me. Best regards, Hervé
