[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99ccdedb-c2c7-4187-9fb4-b2047480e097@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 17:50:21 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Ramón Nordin Rodriguez
<ramon.nordin.rodriguez@...roamp.se>
Cc: Parthiban Veerasooran <Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com>,
hkallweit1@...il.com, linux@...linux.org.uk, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com, Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com,
Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com, Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/6] net: phy: microchip_t1s: replace
read-modify-write code with phy_modify_mmd
> This change also invalidates most of the comment. I think this should be
> reduced to something along the lines of:
> /* HW quirk: Microchip states in the application note (AN1699) for the phy
> * that a set of read-modify-write (rmw) operations has to be performed
> * on a set of seemingly magic registers.
> * The result of these operations is just described as 'optimal performance'
> * Microchip gives no explanation as to what these mmd regs do,
> * in fact they are marked as reserved in the datasheet.*/
I agree the comments should be reviewed in light of these changes.
>
> Additionally I don't mind it if you change the tone of the comment. This was brought
> up in the sitdown we had, where it was explained from Microchip that
> documenting what the reg operations actually does would expose to much
> of the internal workings of the chip.
They cannot care too much, or the firmware in the PHY would do this
where it is all hidden away.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists