[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YvqJyg3eUusc8jkC@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 19:00:42 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Broadcom internal kernel review list
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: broadcom: Implement suspend/resume
for AC131 and BCM5241
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 10:43:56AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> + /* We cannot use a read/modify/write here otherwise the PHY continues
> + * to drive LEDs which defeats the purpose of low power mode.
> + */
...
> + /* Set standby mode */
> + reg = phy_read(phydev, MII_BRCM_FET_SHDW_AUXMODE4);
> + if (reg < 0) {
> + err = reg;
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> + reg |= MII_BRCM_FET_SHDW_AM4_STANDBY;
> +
> + err = phy_write(phydev, MII_BRCM_FET_SHDW_AUXMODE4, reg);
Does the read-modify-write problem extend to this register? Why would
the PHY behave differently whether you used phy_modify() here or not?
On the mdio bus, it should be exactly the same - the only difference
is that we're guaranteed to hold the lock over the sequence whereas
this drops and re-acquires the lock.
If it's sensitive to the timing of the read and the write, it suggests
the above code is fragile - maybe there needs to be a minimum delay
inserted between the read and the write?
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists