On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:42 AM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We need a suitable Fixes tag even here ;)
Ok, I will add it in my next version.
> > ---
> > drivers/net/usb/ax88179_178a.c | 13 -------------
> > 1 file changed, 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/usb/ax88179_178a.c b/drivers/net/usb/ax88179_178a.c
> > index 4ea0e155bb0d..864c6fc2db33 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/usb/ax88179_178a.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/usb/ax88179_178a.c
> > @@ -1678,7 +1678,6 @@ static const struct driver_info ax88179_info = {
> > .unbind = ax88179_unbind,
> > .status = ax88179_status,
> > .link_reset = ax88179_link_reset,
> > - .reset = ax88179_reset,
> > .stop = ax88179_stop,
> > .flags = FLAG_ETHER | FLAG_FRAMING_AX,
> > .rx_fixup = ax88179_rx_fixup,
>
> This looks potentially dangerous, as the device will not get a reset in
> down/up cycles; *possibly* dropping the reset call from ax88179_bind()
> would be safer.
Ok, I had the doubt about which reset would be the best, because it seemed
to me that reset would be better as soon as possible.
I will try what you say to avoid down/up cycles.
> In both cases touching so many H/W variant with testing available on a
> single one sounds dangerous. Is the unneeded 2nd reset causing any
> specific issue?
Actually, this double reboot somewhat masked the first problem, because the
probability of getting a successful initialization, if there is a previous
problem seems to be higher. So, it is not strictly needed but I think it is
better to avoid a second unnecessary reset.
Ok, if I modify the call from ax88179_bind() I will be respecting the reset
operation of all devices.
Thanks
Best regards
José Ignacio
