netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] net: ethernet: bgmac: device tree phy enablement

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <35b16640-8600-8c48-2f04-886dc925229d@milecki.pl>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:31:21 +0100
From:   Rafal Milecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
To:     Jon Mason <jon.mason@...adcom.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] net: ethernet: bgmac: device tree phy enablement

On 11/02/2016 06:08 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
> Change the bgmac driver to allow for phy's defined by the device tree

This is a late review, I know, sorry... :(


> +static int bcma_phy_direct_connect(struct bgmac *bgmac)
> +{
> +	struct fixed_phy_status fphy_status = {
> +		.link = 1,
> +		.speed = SPEED_1000,
> +		.duplex = DUPLEX_FULL,
> +	};
> +	struct phy_device *phy_dev;
> +	int err;
> +
> +	phy_dev = fixed_phy_register(PHY_POLL, &fphy_status, -1, NULL);
> +	if (!phy_dev || IS_ERR(phy_dev)) {
> +		dev_err(bgmac->dev, "Failed to register fixed PHY device\n");
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +	}
> +
> +	err = phy_connect_direct(bgmac->net_dev, phy_dev, bgmac_adjust_link,
> +				 PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII);
> +	if (err) {
> +		dev_err(bgmac->dev, "Connecting PHY failed\n");
> +		return err;
> +	}
> +
> +	return err;
> +}

This bcma specific function looks exactly the same as...


> +static int platform_phy_direct_connect(struct bgmac *bgmac)
> +{
> +	struct fixed_phy_status fphy_status = {
> +		.link = 1,
> +		.speed = SPEED_1000,
> +		.duplex = DUPLEX_FULL,
> +	};
> +	struct phy_device *phy_dev;
> +	int err;
> +
> +	phy_dev = fixed_phy_register(PHY_POLL, &fphy_status, -1, NULL);
> +	if (!phy_dev || IS_ERR(phy_dev)) {
> +		dev_err(bgmac->dev, "Failed to register fixed PHY device\n");
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +	}
> +
> +	err = phy_connect_direct(bgmac->net_dev, phy_dev, bgmac_adjust_link,
> +				 PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII);
> +	if (err) {
> +		dev_err(bgmac->dev, "Connecting PHY failed\n");
> +		return err;
> +	}
> +
> +	return err;
> +}

This one.

Would that make sense to keep bgmac_phy_connect_direct and just use it in
bcma/platform code?