[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOMZO5CAfLYq_LTHMhemHY1GZKFYEs-ucW313F9CmpTjWRdNig@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 12:43:14 -0300
From: Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Hałasa <khalasa@...p.pl>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: Parent device of MDIO bus
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Krzysztof Hałasa <khalasa@...p.pl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed a recent change a71e3c37960ce5f9c6a519bc1215e3ba9fa83e75:
> net: phy: Set the driver when registering an MDIO bus device
>
> mdiobus_register() registers a device which is already bound to a driver.
> Hence, the driver pointer should be set properly in order to track down
> the driver associated to the MDIO bus.
>
> This will be used to allow ethernet driver to pin down a MDIO bus driver,
> preventing it from being unloaded while the PHY device is running.
>
> Does this mean an MDIO driver must now be separate from its Ethernet
> driver in order for the latter to be rmmod-able? Otherwise, the Ethernet
> .probe (*_init_one()) calls mdiobus_register() and immediately bumps
> refcount (for both drivers in a common module) forever.
>
> The other option seems to be moving mdio_register() from Ethernet's
> .probe() to dev->open(). This will make the driver un-rmmod-able when
> the Ethernet device is open (not a big problem and we had it this way
> some time ago). It will be rmmod-able again when all Ethernets are
> closed.
>
> Or am I missing something?
> What do you think?
This patch has been reverted in mainline.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists