On 6/17/19 7:16 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 05:42:53PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 5/30/19 1:46 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> On 5/30/19 1:29 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:33:33PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>> On 5/28/19 11:22 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>>>>>> The link detection on the TJA1100 (not TJA1101) seems unstable at best, >>>>>>> so I better use all the interrupt sources to nudge the PHY subsystem and >>>>>>> have it check the link change. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then it sounds like you should just ignore interrupts and stay will >>>>>> polling for the TJA1100. >>>>> >>>>> Polling for the link status change is slow(er) than the IRQ driven >>>>> operation, so I would much rather use the interrupts. >>>> >>>> I agree about the speed, but it seems like interrupts on this PHY are >>>> not so reliable. Polling always works. But unfortunately, you cannot >>>> have both interrupts and polling to fix up problems when interrupts >>>> fail. Your call, do you think interrupts really do work? >>> >>> It works fine for me this way. And mind you, it's only the TJA1100 >>> that's flaky, the TJA1101 is better. >>> >>>> If you say that tja1101 works as expected, then please just use the >>>> link up/down bits for it. >>> >>> I still don't know which bits really trigger link status changes, so I'd >>> like to play it safe and just trigger on all of them. >> >> So what do we do here ? > > Hi Marek > > My personal preference would be to just enable what is needed. But > I won't block a patch which enables everything. Thanks. I don't know exactly what is needed , but I know that if I enable everything, it works fine. And I'm not getting an interrupt storm either, so it's probably OKish. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut
