[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <568AD10F.7070005@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:07:43 -0800
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 03/24] phy: Use phy_read() instead of mdiobus_read()
On 04/01/16 09:36, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> Since we have a phydev, make use of it and the phy_read() function.
> This will help with later refactoring.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> ---
[snip]
> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
> index 47cd306dbb3c..67a77956ae6f 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
> @@ -407,8 +407,7 @@ int phy_mii_ioctl(struct phy_device *phydev, struct ifreq *ifr, int cmd)
> /* fall through */
>
> case SIOCGMIIREG:
> - mii_data->val_out = mdiobus_read(phydev->bus, mii_data->phy_id,
> - mii_data->reg_num);
> + mii_data->val_out = phy_read(phydev, mii_data->reg_num);
> return 0;
Do we have any guarantee that users of this interface do a prior
SIOCGMIIPHY ioctl() to select the PHY address? If not, then this change
forces it. Arguably, you are current allowed to issue MII reads/writes
using a PHY device that can be different from the intent, that does not
sound like a robust interface...
>
> case SIOCSMIIREG:
> @@ -445,8 +444,7 @@ int phy_mii_ioctl(struct phy_device *phydev, struct ifreq *ifr, int cmd)
> }
> }
>
> - mdiobus_write(phydev->bus, mii_data->phy_id,
> - mii_data->reg_num, val);
> + phy_write(phydev, mii_data->reg_num, val);
Same here.
>
> if (mii_data->phy_id == phydev->addr &&
> mii_data->reg_num == MII_BMCR &&
>
--
Florian
--
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