[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ee9220f3-4e93-0054-d94b-97c3756fb38d@ti.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:17:54 -0500
From: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: <f.fainelli@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] net: phy: DP83TC811: Add INT_STAT3
Andrew
On 06/29/2018 10:45 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:35:45AM -0500, Dan Murphy wrote:
>> Add INT_STAT3 interrupt setting and clearing
>> support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
>> ---
>>
>> v2 - Removed bug fix removal of writing INT_STAT1 twice when disabling interrupts
>>
>> drivers/net/phy/dp83tc811.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/dp83tc811.c b/drivers/net/phy/dp83tc811.c
>> index 49ac678eb2dc..f8653f5d8789 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/phy/dp83tc811.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/dp83tc811.c
>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>> #define MII_DP83811_SGMII_CTRL 0x09
>> #define MII_DP83811_INT_STAT1 0x12
>> #define MII_DP83811_INT_STAT2 0x13
>> +#define MII_DP83811_INT_STAT3 0x18
>> #define MII_DP83811_RESET_CTRL 0x1f
>>
>> #define DP83811_HW_RESET BIT(15)
>> @@ -44,6 +45,11 @@
>> #define DP83811_OVERVOLTAGE_INT_EN BIT(6)
>> #define DP83811_UNDERVOLTAGE_INT_EN BIT(7)
>>
>> +/* INT_STAT3 bits */
>> +#define DP83811_LPS_INT_EN BIT(0)
>> +#define DP83811_NO_FRAME_INT_EN BIT(3)
>> +#define DP83811_POR_DONE_INT_EN BIT(4)
>> +
>> #define MII_DP83811_RXSOP1 0x04a5
>> #define MII_DP83811_RXSOP2 0x04a6
>> #define MII_DP83811_RXSOP3 0x04a7
>> @@ -81,6 +87,10 @@ static int dp83811_ack_interrupt(struct phy_device *phydev)
>> if (err < 0)
>> return err;
>>
>> + err = phy_read(phydev, MII_DP83811_INT_STAT3);
>> + if (err < 0)
>> + return err;
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -216,6 +226,18 @@ static int dp83811_config_intr(struct phy_device *phydev)
>> DP83811_UNDERVOLTAGE_INT_EN);
>>
>> err = phy_write(phydev, MII_DP83811_INT_STAT2, misr_status);
>
> Hi Dan
>
> Isn't this going to fail to apply because net-next says STAT1 here?
>
Yes but this should not be a pre-requisite for a code review.
Maybe I should have put the RFC in the subject.
> That is why i said you need to wait for David to merge net into
> net-next. Then you can submit these patches, and not have conflicts.
>
> Andrew
>
--
------------------
Dan Murphy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists