[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ba6e66da-af76-9373-0be7-229821304d10@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:03:50 +0100
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: improve stopping PHY
On 16.01.2019 20:40, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 08:20:43PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> phy_stop_interrupts() is called from phy_disconnect() only. Most of
>> what it does has been done by phy_stop() already which should have
>> been called before phy_disconnect(). Based on that we can do some
>> improvements:
>> - remove phy_stop_interrupts() and free interrupt in
>> phy_disconnect() directly
>> - replace condition "phydev->irq > 0" with the appropriate helper
>> - make sure phy state machine is stopped after calling phy_stop()
>> - check in phy_disconnect() that PHY is in a stopped state. Else
>> warn to detect misbehaving drivers and call phy_stop().
>
> Hi Heiner
>
> When i see a list like this, it makes me think there should be a
> patchset, not a single patch. If something does break, we can bisect
> it to just one change.
>
> Please could you try to break this up into a few patches.
>
I thought the changes are simple enough to combine them and avoid the
overhead of a patchset. But I'll see to break this up, considering
that not all changes are fully independent.
> Thanks
> Andrew
>
Heiner
Powered by blists - more mailing lists