[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bb9ea9ed-cbf1-0712-2322-1373a7b01fca@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 23:40:38 +0100
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: phy_attach_direct()'s use of device_bind_driver()
On 10.02.2021 23:13, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This email was triggered by this other email[1].
>
> Why is phy_attach_direct() directly calling device_bind_driver()
> instead of using bus_probe_device()? I'm asking because this is
> causing device links status to not get updated correctly and causes
> this[2] warning.
>
The genphy driver is a fallback if no dedicated PHY driver matches the
PHY device. It doesn't match any device, therefore it needs to be
explicitly bound.
> We can fix the device links issue with something like this[3], but
> want to understand the reason for the current implementation of
> phy_attach_direct() before we go ahead and put in that fix.
>
> Thanks,
> Saravana
>
> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e11bc6a2-ec9d-ea3b-71f7-13c9f764bbfc@nvidia.com/#t
> [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/56f7d032-ba5a-a8c7-23de-2969d98c527e@nvidia.com/
> [3] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6a43e209-1d2d-b10a-4564-0289d54135d3@nvidia.com/
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists