Hello Dimitri,
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 11:31:28 +0000
"Fedrau Dimitri (LED)" <Dimitri.Fedrau@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2025 11:16
> >
> [...]
> >
> > @@ -781,17 +782,6 @@ static int dp83822_of_init(struct phy_device *phydev)
> > struct device *dev = &phydev->mdio.dev;
> > const char *of_val;
> >
> > - /* Signal detection for the PHY is only enabled if the FX_EN and the
> > - * SD_EN pins are strapped. Signal detection can only enabled if FX_EN
> > - * is strapped otherwise signal detection is disabled for the PHY.
> > - */
> Does it make sense to keep the comment ?
>
I think so, this behaviour isn't expected to change with this patchset
> > - if (dp83822->fx_enabled && dp83822->fx_sd_enable)
> > - dp83822->fx_signal_det_low = device_property_present(dev,
> > - "ti,link-loss-low");
> > - if (!dp83822->fx_enabled)
> > - dp83822->fx_enabled = device_property_present(dev,
> > - "ti,fiber-mode");
> > -
> > if (!device_property_read_string(dev, "ti,gpio2-clk-out", &of_val)) {
> > if (strcmp(of_val, "mac-if") == 0) {
> > dp83822->gpio2_clk_out = DP83822_CLK_SRC_MAC_IF;
> > @@ -884,6 +874,43 @@ static int dp83822_read_straps(struct phy_device *phydev)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static int dp83822_attach_port(struct phy_device *phydev, struct phy_port *port)
> > +{
> > + struct dp83822_private *dp83822 = phydev->priv;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (port->mediums) {
> > + if (phy_port_is_fiber(port) ||
> > + port->mediums & BIT(ETHTOOL_LINK_MEDIUM_BASEX))
> > + dp83822->fx_enabled = true;
> > + } else {
> > + ret = dp83822_read_straps(phydev);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF_MDIO
> > + if (dp83822->fx_enabled && dp83822->fx_sd_enable)
> > + dp83822->fx_signal_det_low =
> > + device_property_present(dev, "ti,link-loss-low");
> > + if (!dp83822->fx_enabled)
> > + dp83822->fx_enabled =
> > + device_property_present(dev, "ti,fiber-mode");
> > +#endif
>
> I think this is to make it backwards compatible to the dp83822 bindings,
> is it worth mentioning this in a comment ?
Good point yes, I'll mention that.
> > +
> > + if (dp83822->fx_enabled) {
> > + port->lanes = 1;
> > + port->mediums = BIT(ETHTOOL_LINK_MEDIUM_BASEF) |
> > + BIT(ETHTOOL_LINK_MEDIUM_BASEX);
> > + } else {
> > + /* This PHY can only to 100BaseTX max, so on 2 lanes */
> > + port->lanes = 2;
> > + port->mediums = BIT(ETHTOOL_LINK_MEDIUM_BASET);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int dp8382x_probe(struct phy_device *phydev)
> > {
> > struct dp83822_private *dp83822;
> > @@ -900,25 +927,13 @@ static int dp8382x_probe(struct phy_device *phydev)
> >
> > static int dp83822_probe(struct phy_device *phydev)
> > {
> > - struct dp83822_private *dp83822;
> > int ret;
> >
> > ret = dp8382x_probe(phydev);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > - dp83822 = phydev->priv;
> > -
> > - ret = dp83822_read_straps(phydev);
> > - if (ret)
> > - return ret;
> > -
> > - ret = dp83822_of_init(phydev);
> > - if (ret)
> > - return ret;
> > -
> > - if (dp83822->fx_enabled)
> > - phydev->port = PORT_FIBRE;
> > + dp83822_of_init(phydev);
>
> Keep the check of the return value.
Ah yes indeed, the check should indeed stay. Thanks !
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -1104,6 +1119,7 @@ static int dp83822_led_hw_control_get(struct phy_device *phydev, u8 index,
> > .led_hw_is_supported = dp83822_led_hw_is_supported, \
> > .led_hw_control_set = dp83822_led_hw_control_set, \
> > .led_hw_control_get = dp83822_led_hw_control_get, \
> > + .attach_port = dp83822_attach_port \
> > }
> >
> > #define DP83825_PHY_DRIVER(_id, _name) \
> > --
> > 2.48.1
>
> Best regards,
> Dimitri Fedrau
Thanks for reviewing,
Maxime
