lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/3] net: sparx5: Add Sparx5 switchdev driver
    On 28.11.2020 20:03, Andrew Lunn wrote:
    >EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
    >
    >> +static int sparx5_port_open(struct net_device *ndev)
    >> +{
    >> + struct sparx5_port *port = netdev_priv(ndev);
    >> + int err = 0;
    >> +
    >> + sparx5_port_enable(port, true);
    >> + if (port->conf.phy_mode != PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA) {
    >> + err = phylink_of_phy_connect(port->phylink, port->of_node, 0);
    >> + if (err) {
    >> + netdev_err(ndev, "Could not attach to PHY\n");
    >> + return err;
    >> + }
    >> + }
    >
    >This looks a bit odd. PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA means don't touch,
    >something else has already configured the MAC-PHY mode in the PHY.
    >You should not not connect the PHY because of this.

    Hmm. I will have to revisit this again. The intent was to be able to
    destinguish between regular PHYs and SFPs (as read from the DT).
    But maybe the phylink_of_phy_connect function handles this
    automatically...
    >
    >> +void sparx5_destroy_netdev(struct sparx5 *sparx5, struct sparx5_port *port)
    >> +{
    >> + if (port->phylink) {
    >> + /* Disconnect the phy */
    >> + if (rtnl_trylock()) {
    >
    >Why do you use rtnl_trylock()?

    The sparx5_port_stop() in turn calls phylink_stop() that expects the lock
    to be taken. Should I rather just call rtnl_lock()?

    Thanks for your comments

    /Steen


    >
    > Andrew

    BR
    Steen

    ---------------------------------------
    Steen Hegelund
    steen.hegelund@microchip.com

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-11-30 14:30    [W:10.846 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site