[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <PH0PR11MB49507764E1924DAB8B588D59D8FD9@PH0PR11MB4950.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 15:02:03 +0000
From: "Song, Yoong Siang" <yoong.siang.song@...el.com>
To: Marek BehĂșn <kabel@...nel.org>
CC: Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 1/1] net: phy: marvell10g: Add WAKE_PHY support
to WOL event
> > Yes, you are right. I missed the effect of get_wol.
> > Is it needed in future to implement link change interrupt in phy
> > driver? Cause I dint see much phy driver implement link change
> > interrupt.
>
> If there is a board that has interrupt pin wired correctly from the PHY and the
> interrupt controller is safe to use (i.e. it is not a PCA953x which cannot
> handle interrupt storms correctly), then I think the PHY driver should use the
> interrupt, instead of polling.
>
> Marek
Any suggestion to avoid the conflict of "WoL on link change" mentioned by Russell?
Is it make sense to create a new member called wolopts under struct phy_device
to track the WoL status and return the correct status in get_wol callback?
Regards
Siang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists