[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4aad0a7b-38d6-e5f2-c948-87da3303dfe7@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 11:45:18 -0800
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Steve Douthit <stephend@...icom-usa.com>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] ixgbe: register a mdiobus
On 12/3/18 11:44 AM, Steve Douthit wrote:
> On 12/3/18 2:07 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 12/3/18 10:55 AM, Steve Douthit wrote:
>>> Most dsa devices expect a 'struct mii_bus' pointer to talk to switches
>>> via the MII interface.
>>>
>>> While this works for dsa devices, it will not work safely with Linux
>>> PHYs in all configurations since the firmware of the ixgbe device may
>>> be polling some PHY addresses in the background.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Douthit <stephend@...icom-usa.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * ixgbe_mii_bus_write - Write a clause 22/45 register
>>> + * @hw: pointer to hardware structure
>>> + * @addr: address
>>> + * @regnum: register number
>>> + * @regnum: valueto write
>>
>> This should be @val to match the function parameters
>
> OK
>
>>> + **/
>>> +static s32 ixgbe_mii_bus_write(struct mii_bus *bus, int addr, int regnum,
>>> + u16 val)
>>> +{
>>> + struct ixgbe_adapter *adapter = (struct ixgbe_adapter *)bus->priv;
>>
>> Nitpick: cast is not necessary since this is a void * pointer (for that
>> reason).
>
> OK, I'll clean up this and other unnecessary casts.
>
> I forgot Andrew's suggestion to squash the swfw semaphore masks from:
>
> + u32 gssr = hw->phy.phy_semaphore_mask | IXGBE_GSSR_TOKEN_SM;
> +
> + if (hw->bus.lan_id)
> + gssr |= IXGBE_GSSR_PHY1_SM;
> + else
> + gssr |= IXGBE_GSSR_PHY0_SM;
>
> to
>
> + u32 gssr = hw->phy.phy_semaphore_mask;
> + gssr |= IXGBE_GSSR_TOKEN_SM | IXGBE_GSSR_PHY0_SM;
>
> Is it ok to collect both of your 'Reviewed-by:'s with that additional
> change for v4?
I'd think so.
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists