[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9cb4f059-edea-4c81-9ee4-e6020cccb8a5@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 01:31:11 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Marco von Rosenberg <marcovr@...fnet.de>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
Broadcom internal kernel review list
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
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>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: broadcom: Wire suspend/resume for BCM54612E
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 11:54:45PM +0100, Marco von Rosenberg wrote:
> On some devices, the bootloader suspends the PHY before booting the OS.
> Not having a resume callback wired up is a problem in such situations
> since it is then never resumed.
Hi Marco
This description seems odd to me. I'm guessing here:
Are we talking about a device which as been suspended? The PHY has
been left running because there is no suspend callback? Something then
triggers a resume. The bootloader then suspends the active PHY? Linux
then boots, detects its a resume, so does not touch the hardware
because there is no resume callback? The suspended PHY is then
useless.
Adding suspend/resume calls makes sense, i just don't follow the
commit message reasoning.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists