lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v2 01/10] net: dsa: lan9303: Fixed MDIO interface
From
Date
On 25. juli 2017 21:15, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Egil,
>
> Egil Hjelmeland <privat@egil-hjelmeland.no> writes:
>
>> Fixes after testing on actual HW:
>>
>> - lan9303_mdio_write()/_read() must multiply register number
>> by 4 to get offset
>>
>> - Indirect access (PMI) to phy register only work in I2C mode. In
>> MDIO mode phy registers must be accessed directly. Introduced
>> struct lan9303_phy_ops to handle the two modes. Renamed functions
>> to clarify.
>>
>> - lan9303_detect_phy_setup() : Failed MDIO read return 0xffff.
>> Handle that.
>
> Small patch series when possible are better. Bullet points in commit
> messages are likely to describe how a patch or series may be split up
> ;-)
>
> This patch seems to be the unique patch of the series resolving what is
> described in the cover letter as "Make the MDIO interface work".
>
> I'd suggest you to split up this one commit in several *atomic* and easy
> to review patches and send them separately as on thread named "net: dsa:
> lan9303: fix MDIO interface" (also note that imperative is prefered for
> subject lines, see: https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/#imperative)
>
> <...>
>
>> -static int lan9303_port_phy_reg_wait_for_completion(struct lan9303 *chip)
>> +static int lan9303_indirect_phy_wait_for_completion(struct lan9303 *chip)
>
> For instance you can have a first commit only renaming the functions.
> The reason for it is to separate the functional changes from cosmetic
> changes, which makes it easier for review.
>
> <...>

Thank you for reviewing.

I can split the first patch.

I can also split the patch series to more digestible series. But
since most of the patches touches the same file, I assume that each
series must be completed and applied before starting on a new one.
So I really want to group the patches into only a few series in order
to not spend months on the process.


>> + if ((reg != 0) && (reg != 0xffff))
>
> if (reg && reg != 0xffff) should be enough.

Of course.

>> +struct lan9303_phy_ops {
>> + /* PHY 1 &2 access*/
>
> The spacing is weird in the comment. "/* PHY 1 & 2 access */" maybe?
>

Yes.

>> +int lan9303_mdio_phy_write(struct lan9303 *chip, int phy, int regnum, u16 val)
>> +{
>> + struct lan9303_mdio *sw_dev = dev_get_drvdata(chip->dev);
>> + struct mdio_device *mdio = sw_dev->device;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&mdio->bus->mdio_lock);
>> + mdio->bus->write(mdio->bus, phy, regnum, val);
>> + mutex_unlock(&mdio->bus->mdio_lock);
>
> This is exactly what mdiobus_write(mdio->bus, phy, regnum, val) is
> doing. There are very few valid reasons to go play in the mii_bus
> structure, using generic APIs are strongly prefered. Plus you have
> checks and traces for free!
>

Lack of oversight was the only reason. I just adapted stuff from
lan9303_mdio_phy_write above. Will switch to mdiobus_write of course.

> Same here, mdiobus_read().
>
Ditto.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Vivien
>

Appreciated,
Egil

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-26 14:19    [W:0.170 / U:2.384 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site