From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF3BC31E5B for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:16:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64BE32084D for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:16:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="gaCazfKZ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726723AbfFQRQZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:16:25 -0400 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:33944 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726005AbfFQRQZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:16:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=aShAcX1ffuYf6Z5/DgVB3utR2HkNASrMTMIer3eKoF8=; b=gaCazfKZMl0BC6BUVPomKGyfAZ s6TI55qr35Q6XghIVDlGxKCEOv/walOrXr1ZKZT1cYR3etwygW6HXcZCs88LWDjBiBBYFkv7ya7D1 4PtdlSTIZdCwToEy880BPrroh7PTWFuTP5mIZbogQzCF7wWEFbVOlJ122p2YrYl4wXSE=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hcvEr-0002Ac-Fy; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 19:16:13 +0200 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 19:16:13 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Marek Vasut Cc: Heiner Kallweit , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Florian Fainelli , Guenter Roeck , Jean Delvare , linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] net: phy: tja11xx: Add IRQ support to the driver Message-ID: <20190617171613.GJ17551@lunn.ch> References: <4f33b529-6c3c-07ee-6177-2d332de514c6@denx.de> <20190528195806.GV18059@lunn.ch> <15906cc0-3d8f-7810-27ed-d64bdbcfa7e7@denx.de> <20190528212252.GW18059@lunn.ch> <20190529232930.GF18059@lunn.ch> <19f9e596-5b51-8c76-396e-572d3e8da463@denx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-hwmon-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org 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. Andrew