[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <568EC5FF.8030803@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:09:35 -0800
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 11/26] phylink: add phylink infrastructure
On 07/12/15 09:38, Russell King wrote:
[snip]
> +void phylink_phy_change(struct phy_device *phy, bool up, bool do_carrier)
> +{
> + struct phylink *pl = phy->phylink;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&pl->state_mutex);
> + pl->phy_state.speed = phy->speed;
> + pl->phy_state.duplex = phy->duplex;
> + pl->phy_state.pause = MLO_PAUSE_NONE;
> + if (phy->pause)
> + pl->phy_state.pause |= MLO_PAUSE_SYM;
> + if (phy->asym_pause)
> + pl->phy_state.pause |= MLO_PAUSE_ASYM;
> + pl->phy_state.link = up;
> + mutex_unlock(&pl->state_mutex);
> +
> + phylink_run_resolve(pl);
> +
> + netdev_dbg(pl->netdev, "phy link %s\n", up ? "up" : "down");
> +}
Should this function be exported?
[snip]
> +
> + phy_node = of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy-handle", 0);
> + if (!phy_node)
> + phy_node = of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy", 0);
> + if (!phy_node)
> + phy_node = of_parse_phandle(dn, "phy-device", 0);
> +
> + if (!phy_node) {
This could be worth becoming a helper function that drivers could use,
as a subsequent patch for instance.
> + if (pl->link_an_mode == MLO_AN_PHY) {
> + netdev_err(pl->netdev, "unable to find PHY node\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + phy_dev = of_phy_attach(pl->netdev, phy_node, 0, pl->link_interface);
> + /* We're done with the phy_node handle */
> + of_node_put(phy_node);
> +
> + if (!phy_dev)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + ret = phylink_bringup_phy(pl, phy_dev);
> + if (ret)
> + phy_detach(phy_dev);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(phylink_of_phy_connect);
Overall, this looks good to me, I am not very comfortable with the API
similarities between PHY link and traditional PHY devices, since that
forces PHY link to duplicate a bit of code (ioctl among other things).
Would it be better to have a generic PHY device have the option to be
overloaded with PHY link operations such that drivers do not have to
absorb API changes?
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists