linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] net: ethernet: bgmac: device tree phy enablement

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20161103164540.GA24723@broadcom.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:45:41 -0400
From:   Jon Mason <jon.mason@...adcom.com>
To:     rafal@...ecki.pl
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] net: ethernet: bgmac: device tree phy enablement

On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:31:21AM +0100, Rafal Milecki wrote:
> On 11/02/2016 06:08 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
> >Change the bgmac driver to allow for phy's defined by the device tree
> 
> This is a late review, I know, sorry... :(
> 
> 
> >+static int bcma_phy_direct_connect(struct bgmac *bgmac)
> >+{
> >+	struct fixed_phy_status fphy_status = {
> >+		.link = 1,
> >+		.speed = SPEED_1000,
> >+		.duplex = DUPLEX_FULL,
> >+	};
> >+	struct phy_device *phy_dev;
> >+	int err;
> >+
> >+	phy_dev = fixed_phy_register(PHY_POLL, &fphy_status, -1, NULL);
> >+	if (!phy_dev || IS_ERR(phy_dev)) {
> >+		dev_err(bgmac->dev, "Failed to register fixed PHY device\n");
> >+		return -ENODEV;
> >+	}
> >+
> >+	err = phy_connect_direct(bgmac->net_dev, phy_dev, bgmac_adjust_link,
> >+				 PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII);
> >+	if (err) {
> >+		dev_err(bgmac->dev, "Connecting PHY failed\n");
> >+		return err;
> >+	}
> >+
> >+	return err;
> >+}
> 
> This bcma specific function looks exactly the same as...
> 
> 
> >+static int platform_phy_direct_connect(struct bgmac *bgmac)
> >+{
> >+	struct fixed_phy_status fphy_status = {
> >+		.link = 1,
> >+		.speed = SPEED_1000,
> >+		.duplex = DUPLEX_FULL,
> >+	};
> >+	struct phy_device *phy_dev;
> >+	int err;
> >+
> >+	phy_dev = fixed_phy_register(PHY_POLL, &fphy_status, -1, NULL);
> >+	if (!phy_dev || IS_ERR(phy_dev)) {
> >+		dev_err(bgmac->dev, "Failed to register fixed PHY device\n");
> >+		return -ENODEV;
> >+	}
> >+
> >+	err = phy_connect_direct(bgmac->net_dev, phy_dev, bgmac_adjust_link,
> >+				 PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII);
> >+	if (err) {
> >+		dev_err(bgmac->dev, "Connecting PHY failed\n");
> >+		return err;
> >+	}
> >+
> >+	return err;
> >+}
> 
> This one.
> 
> Would that make sense to keep bgmac_phy_connect_direct and just use it in
> bcma/platform code?

Yes, I was having the same internal debate.  I hate the duplication of
code, but I really wanted to keep the PHY logic out of the bgmac.c
file.  Do you think it is acceptable to make this an inline function
in bgmac.h?

Thanks,
Jon