[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220310155709.xfbqjspok2duka3n@skbuf>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 15:57:10 +0000
From: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"kishon@...com" <kishon@...com>,
"vkoul@...nel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Leo Li <leoyang.li@....com>,
"linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Hongxing Zhu <hongxing.zhu@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 7/8] dpaa2-mac: configure the SerDes phy on a
protocol change
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 03:05:50PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 04:51:59PM +0200, Ioana Ciornei wrote:
> > This patch integrates the dpaa2-eth driver with the generic PHY
> > infrastructure in order to search, find and reconfigure the SerDes lanes
> > in case of a protocol change.
> >
> > On the .mac_config() callback, the phy_set_mode_ext() API is called so
> > that the Lynx 28G SerDes PHY driver can change the lane's configuration.
> > In the same phylink callback the MC firmware is called so that it
> > reconfigures the MAC side to run using the new protocol.
> >
> > The consumer drivers - dpaa2-eth and dpaa2-switch - are updated to call
> > the dpaa2_mac_start/stop functions newly added which will
> > power_on/power_off the associated SerDes lane.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>
>
> Looks better, there's a minor thing that I missed, sorry:
>
> > + if (mac->features & DPAA2_MAC_FEATURE_PROTOCOL_CHANGE &&
> > + !phy_interface_mode_is_rgmii(mac->if_mode) &&
> > + is_of_node(dpmac_node)) {
> > + serdes_phy = of_phy_get(to_of_node(dpmac_node), NULL);
> > +
> > + if (IS_ERR(serdes_phy)) {
> > + if (PTR_ERR(serdes_phy) == -ENODEV)
> > + serdes_phy = NULL;
> > + else
> > + return PTR_ERR(serdes_phy);
> > + } else {
> > + phy_init(serdes_phy);
> > + }
>
> Would:
> if (PTR_ERR(serdes_phy) == -ENODEV)
> serdes_phy = NULL;
> else if (IS_ERR(serdes_phy))
> return PTR_ERR(serdes_phy);
> else
> phy_init(serdes_phy);
>
Yes, it wouldn't be an if inside another if statement.
> be neater? There is no need to check IS_ERR() before testing PTR_ERR().
> One may also prefer the pointer-comparison approach:
>
> if (serdes_phy == ERR_PTR(-ENODEV))
>
> to remove any question about PTR_ERR(p) on a !IS_ERR(p) value too, but
> it really doesn't make any difference.
>
> I suspect this is just a code formatting issue, I'd think the compiler
> would generate reasonable code either way, so as I said above, it's
> quite minor.
>
As you said, since it's quite minor I am going to wait to see if more
comments will appear, if not I am going to fix this up in another patch.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists