[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c0b5ca41-c145-4adc-86c0-067e5043523b@tuxon.dev>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:20:19 +0200
From: claudiu beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: hkallweit1@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, yuiko.oshino@...rochip.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: phy: micrel: populate .soft_reset for KSZ9131
Hi, Andrew, Russell,
On 05.01.2024 16:36, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 09:43:22AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 10:52:42AM +0200, Claudiu wrote:
>>> The order of PHY-related operations in ravb_open() is as follows:
>>> ravb_open() ->
>>> ravb_phy_start() ->
>>> ravb_phy_init() ->
>>> of_phy_connect() ->
>>> phy_connect_direct() ->
>>> phy_attach_direct() ->
>>> phy_init_hw() ->
>>> phydev->drv->soft_reset()
>>> phydev->drv->config_init()
>>> phydev->drv->config_intr()
>>> phy_resume()
>>> kszphy_resume()
>>>
>>> The order of PHY-related operations in ravb_close is as follows:
>>> ravb_close() ->
>>> phy_stop() ->
>>> phy_suspend() ->
>>> kszphy_suspend() ->
>>> genphy_suspend()
>>> // set BMCR_PDOWN bit in MII_BMCR
>>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> This looks wrong to me - shouldn't we be resuming the PHY before
>> attempting to configure it?
>
> Hummm. The opposite of phy_stop() is phy_start(). So it would be the
> logical order to perform the resume as the first action of
> phy_start(), not phy_attach_direct().
>
> In phy_connect_direct(), we don't need the PHY to be operational
> yet. That happens with phy_start().
>
> The standard says:
>
> 22.2.4.1.5 Power down
>
> The PHY may be placed in a low-power consumption state by setting
> bit 0.11 to a logic one. Clearing bit 0.11 to zero allows normal
> operation. The specific behavior of a PHY in the power-down state is
> implementation specific. While in the power-down state, the PHY
> shall respond to management transactions.
>
> So i would say this PHY is broken, its not responding to all
> management transactions. So in that respect, Claudiu fix is correct.
>
> But i also somewhat agree with you, this looks wrong, but in a
> different way to how you see it. However, moving the phy_resume() to
> phy_start() seems a bit risky. So i'm not sure we should actually do
> that.
It's not clear to me if you both agree with this fix. Could you please let
me know?
Thank you,
Claudiu Beznea
>
> Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists