On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 05:19:28PM +0100, Michael Grzeschik wrote: > The softreset was already called previously in open and other settings > have been prepared afterwards, so don't reset it a second time. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Grzeschik <m.grzeschik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/net/cpsw.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/cpsw.c b/drivers/net/cpsw.c > index b9a6575009..4eb2205daa 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/cpsw.c > +++ b/drivers/net/cpsw.c > @@ -676,8 +676,6 @@ static void cpsw_slave_init(struct cpsw_slave *slave, struct cpsw_priv *priv) > > dev_dbg(&slave->dev, "* %s\n", __func__); > > - soft_reset(priv, &slave->sliver->soft_reset); > - What you remove here is the only place where soft_reset() is called with &slave->sliver->soft_reset. If you have to remove that to fix something then it's not because we reset something twice. What looks really really fishy in this driver is that cpsw_open() is called per slave, but nearly all things this function does affect the whole cpsw and not the slave instance it is called with. This starts with: soft_reset(priv, &priv->regs->soft_reset); It looks like this can't work when multiple slaves are enabled. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
