On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2014-03-20 3:53 GMT-07:00 Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> +static int hip04_mdio_reset(struct mii_bus *bus)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int temp, err, i;
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
>>>> + hip04_mdio_write(bus, i, 22, 0);
>>>> + temp = hip04_mdio_read(bus, i, MII_BMCR);
>>>> + temp |= BMCR_RESET;
>>>> + err = hip04_mdio_write(bus, i, MII_BMCR, temp);
>>>> + if (err < 0)
>>>> + return err;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + mdelay(500);
>>>
>>> This does not look correct, you should iterate over all possible PHYs:
>>> PHY_MAX_ADDR instead of hardcoding the loop to 2.
>>
>> OK, got it.
>> Use 2 is since only have 2 phy in the board, will use PHY_MAX_ADDR instead.
>>>
>>> I think we might want to remove the mdio bus reset callback in general
>>> as the PHY library should already take care of software resetting the
>>> PHY to put it in a sane state, as well as waiting for the appropriate
>>> delay before using, unlike here, where you do not poll for BMCR_RESET
>>> to be cleared by the PHY.
>>>
>> Do you mean will move BMCR_RESET to common code, that's would be great.
>> The mdio_reset is added here to get phy_id, otherwise the phy_id can
>> not be read as well as detection.
>
> Oh I see, thanks for mentioning that, this is not properly covered
> here today as we need to get the PHY id before we assign it a
> phy_device structure, let me cook a patch for this.
> --
Should I keep hip04_mdio_reset in the next submit or remove it directly?
Thanks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
