On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 01:44:28PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 01/12/2022 13:40, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-11-29 at 15:34 +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
> >> @@ -555,11 +556,26 @@ static int am65_cpsw_nuss_ndo_slave_open(struct net_device *ndev)
> >> struct am65_cpsw_common *common = am65_ndev_to_common(ndev);
> >> struct am65_cpsw_port *port = am65_ndev_to_port(ndev);
> >> int ret, i;
> >> + u32 reg;
> >>
> >> ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(common->dev);
> >> if (ret < 0)
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> + /* Idle MAC port */
> >> + cpsw_sl_ctl_set(port->slave.mac_sl, CPSW_SL_CTL_CMD_IDLE);
> >> + cpsw_sl_wait_for_idle(port->slave.mac_sl, 100);
> >> + cpsw_sl_ctl_reset(port->slave.mac_sl);
> >> +
> >> + /* soft reset MAC */
> >> + cpsw_sl_reg_write(port->slave.mac_sl, CPSW_SL_SOFT_RESET, 1);
> >> + mdelay(1);
> >> + reg = cpsw_sl_reg_read(port->slave.mac_sl, CPSW_SL_SOFT_RESET);
> >> + if (reg) {
> >> + dev_err(common->dev, "soft RESET didn't complete\n");
> >
> > I *think* Andrew was asking for dev_dbg() here, but let's see what he
> > has to say :)
>
> In the earlier revision we were not exiting with error, so dev_dbg()
> was more appropriate there.
> In this revision we error out so I thought dev_err() was ok.
Yes, i would agree. It is fatal, so dev_err() is appropriate.
What is not shown here is the return value. I think it is -EBUSY? I'm
wondering if -ETIMEDOUT is better?
Andrew
