wt., 23 cze 2020 o 21:14 Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > On 6/22/20 2:37 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Currently we only call phy_device_reset() if the PHY driver implements > > the probe() callback. This is not mandatory and many drivers (e.g. > > realtek) don't need probe() for most devices but still can have reset > > GPIOs defined. There's no reason to depend on the presence of probe() > > here so pull the reset code out of the if clause. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > OK, but now let's imagine that a PHY device has two or more reset lines, > one of them is going to be managed by the core PHY library and the rest > is going to be under the responsibility of the PHY driver, that does not > sound intuitive or convenient at all. This is a hypothetical case, but > it could conceivable happen, so how about adding a flag to the driver > that says "let me manage it a all"? This sounds good as a new feature idea but doesn't seem to be related to what this patch is trying to do. The only thing it does is improve the current behavior. I'll note your point for the future work on the pre-probe stage. Bartosz
