[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0a1ec04fe494fcd8c68d03e4f544d7162c0e4f39.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 10:04:11 +0100
From: Klaus Kudielka <klaus.kudielka@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>,
John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
Mark Lee <Mark-MC.Lee@...iatek.com>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Bryan Whitehead <bryan.whitehead@...rochip.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/6] net: mdio: scan bus based on bus
capabilities for C22 and C45
On Sun, 2023-03-12 at 03:53 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >
> > What you are proposing here would not show any improvement on the
> > Omnia, as only the 6 ports would be scanned - right?
>
> Correct. But their also should not of been any noticeable slow down,
> because there should not be any additional scanning when everything is
> described in DT. And the move of the MDIO bus registration from probe
> to setup should actually make it faster than before.
>
But then, why *do* I see such a big difference on the Omnia?
mdiobus_scan_bus_c45() takes:
~2.7 seconds without phy_mask patch
~0.2 seconds with phy_mask patch
(It's not a big deal, but somehow strange)
Regards, Klaus
PS: There was another open question: How long does the first
unsuccessful mv88e6xxx_probe() take, when calling
mv88e6xxx_mdios_register() from mv88e6xxx_setup()?
I would say "negligible":
[ 0.194414] mv88e6085 f1072004.mdio-mii:10: *** mv88e6xxx_probe call ***
[ 0.194739] mv88e6085 f1072004.mdio-mii:10: switch 0x1760 detected: Marvell 88E6176, revision 1
[ 0.208163] mv88e6085 f1072004.mdio-mii:10: *** mv88e6xxx_probe return -517 ***
Powered by blists - more mailing lists