Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/4] net: phy: dp83td510: Add support for the DP83TD510 Ethernet PHY | From | Dan Murphy <> | Date | Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:35:26 -0600 |
| |
Andrew
On 11/3/20 11:18 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 11:07:00AM -0600, Dan Murphy wrote: >> Andrew >> >> On 10/30/20 3:15 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>>> +static int dp83td510_config_init(struct phy_device *phydev) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct dp83td510_private *dp83td510 = phydev->priv; >>>> + int mst_slave_cfg; >>>> + int ret = 0; >>>> + >>>> + if (phy_interface_is_rgmii(phydev)) { >>>> + if (dp83td510->rgmii_delay) { >>>> + ret = phy_set_bits_mmd(phydev, DP83TD510_DEVADDR, >>>> + DP83TD510_MAC_CFG_1, dp83td510->rgmii_delay); >>>> + if (ret) >>>> + return ret; >>>> + } >>>> + } >>> Hi Dan >>> >>> I'm getting a bit paranoid about RGMII delays... >> Not sure what this means. > See the discussion and breakage around the realtek PHY. It wrongly > implemented RGMII delays. When it was fixed, lots of board broke > because the bug in the PHY driver hid bugs in the DT. > I will have to go find that thread. Do you have a link? >>> Please don't use device_property_read_foo API, we don't want to give >>> the impression it is O.K. to stuff DT properties in ACPI >>> tables. Please use of_ API calls. >> Hmm. Is this a new stance in DT handling for the networking tree? >> >> If it is should I go back and rework some of my other drivers that use >> device_property APIs > There is a slowly growing understanding what ACPI support in this area > means. It seems to mean that the firmware should actually do all the > setup, and the kernel should not touch the hardware configuration. But > some developers are ignoring this, and just stuffing DT properties > into ACPI tables and letting the kernel configure the hardware, if it > happens to use the device_property_read API. So i want to make it > clear that these properties are for device tree, and if you want to > use ACPI, you should do things the ACPI way. > > For new code, i will be pushing for OF only calls. Older code is a bit > more tricky. There might be boards out there using ACPI, but doing it > wrongly, and stuffing OF properties into ACPI tables. We should try to > avoid breaking them.
Got it. I will move back to of_* calls
Dan
> Andrew
| |