[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <33e89328-4f0b-cc9f-96cc-4b45747b9f34@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:07:35 -0400
From: Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
<ssantosh@...nel.org>, <malat@...ian.org>, <w-kwok2@...com>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v2 05/10] net: netcp: ethss: use rgmii link
status for 2u cpsw hardware
On 03/27/2018 01:29 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:31:44PM -0400, Murali Karicheri wrote:
>> Introduce rgmii link status to handle link state events for 2u
>> cpsw hardware on K2G.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_ethss.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_ethss.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_ethss.c
>> index ab9d369..078a1b8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_ethss.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_ethss.c
>> @@ -552,6 +552,7 @@ struct gbe_ss_regs {
>> struct gbe_ss_regs_ofs {
>> u16 id_ver;
>> u16 control;
>> + u16 rgmii_status; /* 2U */
>> };
>>
>> struct gbe_switch_regs {
>> @@ -2120,23 +2121,39 @@ static bool gbe_phy_link_status(struct gbe_slave *slave)
>> return !slave->phy || slave->phy->link;
>> }
>>
>> +#define RGMII_REG_STATUS_LINK BIT(0)
>> +
>> +static void netcp_2u_rgmii_get_port_link(struct gbe_priv *gbe_dev, bool *status)
>> +{
>> + u32 val = 0;
>> +
>> + val = readl(GBE_REG_ADDR(gbe_dev, ss_regs, rgmii_status));
>> + *status = false;
>> + if ((val & RGMII_REG_STATUS_LINK) != 0)
>> + *status = true;
>
> *status = !!(val & RGMII_REG_STATUS_LINK);
>
>
>> +}
>> +
>> static void netcp_ethss_update_link_state(struct gbe_priv *gbe_dev,
>> struct gbe_slave *slave,
>> struct net_device *ndev)
>> {
>> - int sp = slave->slave_num;
>> - int phy_link_state, sgmii_link_state = 1, link_state;
>> + bool sw_link_state = true, phy_link_state;
>> + int sp = slave->slave_num, link_state;
>>
>> if (!slave->open)
>> return;
>>
>> if (!SLAVE_LINK_IS_XGMII(slave)) {
>> - sgmii_link_state =
>> + if (SLAVE_LINK_IS_RGMII(slave))
>> + netcp_2u_rgmii_get_port_link(gbe_dev,
>> + &sw_link_state);
>> + else
>> + sw_link_state =
>> netcp_sgmii_get_port_link(SGMII_BASE(gbe_dev, sp), sp);
>
> This would be more readable as
>
> if (SLAVE_LINK_IS_RGMII(slave))
> netcp_2u_rgmii_get_port_link(gbe_dev,
> &sw_link_state);
> if (SLAVE_LINK_IS_SGMII(slave))
> sw_link_state = netcp_sgmii_get_port_link(
> SGMII_BASE(gbe_dev, sp), sp);
>
Probably better to use a switch statement in this case for better readability?
handle only SGMII and RGMII cases in the switch statement.
Murali
> Andrew
>
--
Murali Karicheri
Linux Kernel, Keystone
Powered by blists - more mailing lists