On 01/12/2022 17:19, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 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?
Yes it is -EBUSY. -ETIMEDOUT is better though so I'll re-spin this series.
cheers,
-roger
