On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 06:15:45PM +0200, Egil Hjelmeland wrote:
> For some mysterious reason enable switch fabric port 0 TX fails to
> work, when the TX has previous been disabled. Resolved by not
> disable/enable switch fabric port 0 at startup. Port 1 and 2 are
> still disabled in early init.
>
> Signed-off-by: Egil Hjelmeland <privat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/dsa/lan9303-core.c | 7 -------
> 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303-core.c b/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303-core.c
> index e622db586c3d..c2b53659f58f 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303-core.c
> @@ -557,9 +557,6 @@ static int lan9303_disable_processing(struct lan9303 *chip)
> {
> int ret;
>
> - ret = lan9303_disable_packet_processing(chip, LAN9303_PORT_0_OFFSET);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> ret = lan9303_disable_packet_processing(chip, LAN9303_PORT_1_OFFSET);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> @@ -633,10 +630,6 @@ static int lan9303_setup(struct dsa_switch *ds)
> if (ret)
> dev_err(chip->dev, "failed to separate ports %d\n", ret);
>
> - ret = lan9303_enable_packet_processing(chip, LAN9303_PORT_0_OFFSET);
> - if (ret)
> - dev_err(chip->dev, "failed to re-enable switching %d\n", ret);
> -
Does this mean you are relying on something else enabling port 0? The
bootloader?
I'm wondering if it is better to keep the enable, but remove the
disable?
Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
