[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 1/2] rtnetlink: Add new RTM_GETEECSTATE message to get SyncE status
maciej.machnikowski at intel.com
Wed Sep 8 17:30:24 UTC 2021
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba at kernel.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 6:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] rtnetlink: Add new RTM_GETEECSTATE
> message to get SyncE status
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 08:03:35 +0000 Machnikowski, Maciej wrote:
> > > > Yep! Yet let's go one step at a time. I believe once we have the basics
> > > > monitoring and recovered clock configuration) we'll be able to
> > > > a basic functionality - and add bells and whistles later on, as there are
> > > > capabilities that we could support in SW.
> > >
> > > The set API may shape how the get API looks. We need a minimal viable
> > > API where the whole control part of it is not "firmware or proprietary
> > > tools take care of that".
> > >
> > > Do you have public docs on how the whole solution works?
> > The best reference would be my netdev 0x15 tutorial:
> > https://netdevconf.info/0x15/session.html?Introduction-to-time-
> > The SyncE API considerations starts ~54:00, but basically we need API for:
> > - Controlling the lane to pin mapping for clock recovery
> > - Check the EEC/DPLL state and see what's the source of reference
> > (in more advanced deployments)
> > - control additional input and output pins (GNSS input, external inputs,
> > frequency reference)
> Thanks, good presentation! I haven't seen much in terms of system
> design, at the level similar to the Broadcom whitepaper you shared.
See the "drawing" below.
> > > > I believe this is the state-of-art: here's the Broadcom public one
> > > > https://docs.broadcom.com/doc/1211168567832, I believe Marvel
> > > > has similar solution. But would also be happy to hear others.
> > >
> > > Interesting. That reveals the need for also marking the backup
> > > (/secondary) clock.
> > That's optional, but useful. And here's where we need a feedback
> > on which port/lane is currently used, as the switch may be automatic
> What do you mean by optional? How does the user know if there is
> fallback or not? Is it that Intel is intending to support only
> devices with up to 2 ports and the second port is always the
> backup (apologies for speculating).
That will be a part of pin config API. It needs to give info about the number
of supported pins that the PHY/MAC can use as recovered clock outputs.
Once the pin is assigned to the lane the recovered clock (divided or not)
will appear on the configured PHY/MAC pin and EEC will be able to
use it. If there is more than 1 available - they will have some priority
assigned to them that will be known to the EEC/board designer.
And we plan to support devices that only comes with 1 recovered clock
output as well.
> > > Have you seen any docs on how systems with discreet PHY ASICs mux
> > > the clocks?
> > Yes - unfortunately they are not public :(
> Mumble, mumble. Ido, Florian - any devices within your purview which
> would support SyncE?
OK Found one that's public:
see Fig. 23 and chapter 3.11 for details, but conceptually it's similar.
> > > > Ethernet IP/PHY usually outputs a divided clock signal (since it's
> > > > easier to route) derived from the RX clock.
> > > > The DPLL connectivity is vendor-specific, as you can use it to connect
> > > > some external signals, but you can as well just care about relying
> > > > the SyncE clock and only allow recovering it and passing along
> > > > the QL info when your EEC is locked. That's why I backed up from
> > > > a full DPLL implementation in favor of a more generic EEC clock.
> > >
> > > What is an ECC clock? To me the PLL state in the Ethernet port is the
> > > state of the recovered clock. enum if_eec_state has values like
> > > holdover which seem to be more applicable to the "system wide" PLL.
> > EEC is Ethernet Equipment Clock. In most cases this will be a DPLL, but that's
> > not mandatory and I believe it may be different is switches where
> > you only need to drive all ports TX from a single frequency source. In this
> > case the DPLL can be embedded in the multiport PHY,
> > > Let me ask this - if one port is training the link and the other one has
> > > the lock and is the source - what state will be reported for each port?
> > In this case the port that has the lock source will report the lock and
> > the EEC_SRC_PORT flag. The port that trains the link will show the
> > lock without the flag and once it completes the training sequence it will
> > use the EEC's frequency to transmit the data so that the next hop is able
> > to synchronize its EEC to the incoming RX frequency
> Alright, I don't like that. It feels like you're attaching one object's
> information (ECC) to other objects (ports), and repeating it. Prof
> Goczyła and dr Landowska would not be proud.
Hahaha - did not expect them to pop up here :)
It's true, but the problem is that they depend on each other. The path is:
------------- |\ Pin0 RefN ____
------------- | |-----------------| | synced clk
... | |-----------------| EEC |------------------
------------- |/ PinN RefM|____ |
Lane N MUX
To get the full info a port needs to know the EEC state and which lane is used
as a source (or rather - my lane or any other).
The lane -> Pin mapping is buried in the PHY/MAC, but the source of frequency
is in the EEC.
What's even more - the Pin->Ref mapping is board specific.
The viable solutions are:
- Limit to the proposed "I drive the clock" vs "Someone drives it" and assume the
Driver returns all info
- return the EEC Ref index, figure out which pin is connected to it and then check
which MAC/PHY lane that drives it.
I assume option one is easy to implement and keep in the future even if we
finally move to option 2 once we define EEC/DPLL subsystem.
In future #1 can take the lock information from the DPLL subsystem, but
will also enable simple deployments that won't expose the whole DPLL,
like a filter PLL embedded in a multiport PHY that will only work for
SyncE in which case this API will only touch a single component.
> > > > The Time IP is again relative and vendor-specific. If SyncE is deployed
> > > > alongside PTP it will most likely be tightly coupled, but if you only
> > > > care about having a frequency source - it's not mandatory and it can be
> > > > as well in the PHY IP.
> > >
> > > I would not think having just the freq is very useful.
> > This depends on the deployment. There are couple popular frequencies
> > Most popular are 2,048 kHz, 10 MHz and 64 kHz. There are many
> > deployments that only require frequency sync without the phase
> > and/or time. I.e. if you deploy frequency division duplex you only need the
> > frequency reference, and the higher frequency you have - the faster you
> > lock to it.
More information about the Intel-wired-lan