[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CE371C1263339941885964188A0225FA3A4C6F@CHN-SV-EXMX03.mchp-main.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 14:37:29 +0000
From: <Nisar.Sayed@...rochip.com>
To: <phil@...pberrypi.org>, <Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>,
<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <agraf@...e.de>,
<tbogendoerfer@...e.de>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] lan78xx: Don't reset the interface on open
Hi Phil,
> Hi Nisar,
>
> On 10/04/2018 15:16, Nisar.Sayed@...rochip.com wrote:
> > Thanks Phil, for identifying the issues.
> >
> >> - ret = lan78xx_reset(dev);
> >> - if (ret < 0)
> >> - goto done;
> >> -
> >> phy_start(net->phydev);
> >>
> >> netif_dbg(dev, ifup, dev->net, "phy initialised successfully");
> >> --
> >
> > You may need to start the interrupts before "phy_start" instead of
> suppressing call to "lan78xx_reset".
> >
> > + if (dev->domain_data.phyirq > 0)
> > + phy_start_interrupts(dev->net->phydev);
>
> Shouldn't phy_connect_direct, called from lan78xx_phy_init, already have
> enabled interrupts for us?
>
> This patch addresses two problems - time wasted by renegotiating the link
> after the reset and the missed interrupt - and I'd like both to be fixed. Unless
> you can come up with a good reason for performing the reset from the open
> handler I think it should be removed.
>
> Phil
Thanks, we have verified suspected test cases and these are passed, the changes are good to go.
- Nisar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists