lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC 03/11] net: phy: refactor c45 phy identification sequence
From
Date
Hi,

On 5/23/20 10:28 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 04:30:51PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>> Lets factor out the phy id logic, and make it generic
>> so that it can be used for c22 and c45.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>> 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>> index 7746c07b97fe..f0761fa5e40b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>> @@ -695,6 +695,29 @@ static int get_phy_c45_devs_in_pkg(struct mii_bus *bus, int addr, int dev_addr,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int _get_phy_id(struct mii_bus *bus, int addr, int dev_addr,
>> + u32 *phy_id, bool c45)
>
> Hi Jeremy
>
> How about read_phy_id() so you can avoid the _ prefix.
>
>> static bool valid_phy_id(int val)
>> {
>> return (val > 0 && ((val & 0x1fffffff) != 0x1fffffff));
>> @@ -715,17 +738,17 @@ static bool valid_phy_id(int val)
>> */
>> static int get_phy_c45_ids(struct mii_bus *bus, int addr, u32 *phy_id,
>> struct phy_c45_device_ids *c45_ids) {
>> - int phy_reg;
>> - int i, reg_addr;
>> + int ret;
>> + int i;
>> const int num_ids = ARRAY_SIZE(c45_ids->device_ids);
>> u32 *devs = &c45_ids->devices_in_package;
>>
>> /* Find first non-zero Devices In package. Device zero is reserved
>> * for 802.3 c45 complied PHYs, so don't probe it at first.
>> */
>> - for (i = 1; i < num_ids && *devs == 0; i++) {
>> - phy_reg = get_phy_c45_devs_in_pkg(bus, addr, i, devs);
>> - if (phy_reg < 0)
>> + for (i = 0; i < num_ids && *devs == 0; i++) {
>> + ret = get_phy_c45_devs_in_pkg(bus, addr, i, devs);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> return -EIO;
>
> Renaming reg_addr to ret does not belong in this patch.
>

Looks like I changed the loop index in this patch while shuffling things
around yesterday too. The "for (i = 1/0.." change belongs in 5/11 as well.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-23 19:33    [W:0.121 / U:28.896 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site