All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: b.brezillon@overkiz.com (boris brezillon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH] phylib: mdio: handle register/unregister/register sequence
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:05:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52160CAC.3040603@overkiz.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGVrzcaByva=8xiswcsW1B8G4dL=jY0RdaHKzNqaT_0Lrwbprg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Florian,

Thanks for your answer.

On 22/08/2013 14:43, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Hello Boris,
>
> 2013/8/22 Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon@overkiz.com>:
>> Hello,
>>
>> This patch is a proposal to support the register/unregister/register
>> sequence on a given mdio bus.
>>
>> I use the register/unregister/register sequence to add a fallback when the
>> of_mdiobus_register (this function calls mdiobus_register with phy_mask
>> set to ~0) does not register any phy device (because the device tree does
>> not define any phy).
>> In this case I call mdiobus_unregister and then call mdiobus_register with
>> a phy_mask set to 0 to trigger a full mdio bus scan.
>>
>> I'm not sure this is the right way to do it (this is why I added RFC in the
>> subject).
>>
>> Could someone help me figuring out what I should use to implement my fallback ?
>>
>> 1) use the register/unregister/register sequence
>> 2) reimplement the "for (i = 0; i < PHY_MAX_ADDR; i++)" mdiobus_scan loop
> I think solution 2 is nicer, in that case, would it be enough in your
> case to export a function called mdiobus_scan()? You could call at a
> time you know PHY devices have a chance of having been probed?
mdiobus_scan is already exported:
struct phy_device *mdiobus_scan(struct mii_bus *bus, int addr);

This function scans the presence of a phy device at a given address.

What I need is a loop which scan all the possible address on the given
mdio bus:

struct phy_device *mdiobus_full_scan(struct mii_bus *bus)
{
     int i;
     for (i = 0; i < PHY_MAX_ADDR; i++) {
         if ((bus->phy_mask & (1 << i)) == 0) {
             struct phy_device *phydev;

             phydev = mdiobus_scan(bus, i);
             if (IS_ERR(phydev)) {
                 err = PTR_ERR(phydev);
                 goto error;
             }
         }
     }
     return 0;

error:
     while (--i >= 0) {
         if (bus->phy_map[i])
             device_unregister(&bus->phy_map[i]->dev);
     }
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(mdiobus_full_scan);

Since I am the only one who need this kind of functionnality right now, 
I'm not sure
this is a good idea to export a new function.

This behaviour may be implemented in the of_mdiobus_register function:
when no dt phy node are found in the mdio bus dt node, we could launch a 
full
scan.

What do you think ?

Best Regards,

Boris

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: boris brezillon <b.brezillon@overkiz.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Nick Bowler <nbowler@elliptictech.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] phylib: mdio: handle register/unregister/register sequence
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:05:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52160CAC.3040603@overkiz.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGVrzcaByva=8xiswcsW1B8G4dL=jY0RdaHKzNqaT_0Lrwbprg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Florian,

Thanks for your answer.

On 22/08/2013 14:43, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Hello Boris,
>
> 2013/8/22 Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon@overkiz.com>:
>> Hello,
>>
>> This patch is a proposal to support the register/unregister/register
>> sequence on a given mdio bus.
>>
>> I use the register/unregister/register sequence to add a fallback when the
>> of_mdiobus_register (this function calls mdiobus_register with phy_mask
>> set to ~0) does not register any phy device (because the device tree does
>> not define any phy).
>> In this case I call mdiobus_unregister and then call mdiobus_register with
>> a phy_mask set to 0 to trigger a full mdio bus scan.
>>
>> I'm not sure this is the right way to do it (this is why I added RFC in the
>> subject).
>>
>> Could someone help me figuring out what I should use to implement my fallback ?
>>
>> 1) use the register/unregister/register sequence
>> 2) reimplement the "for (i = 0; i < PHY_MAX_ADDR; i++)" mdiobus_scan loop
> I think solution 2 is nicer, in that case, would it be enough in your
> case to export a function called mdiobus_scan()? You could call at a
> time you know PHY devices have a chance of having been probed?
mdiobus_scan is already exported:
struct phy_device *mdiobus_scan(struct mii_bus *bus, int addr);

This function scans the presence of a phy device at a given address.

What I need is a loop which scan all the possible address on the given
mdio bus:

struct phy_device *mdiobus_full_scan(struct mii_bus *bus)
{
     int i;
     for (i = 0; i < PHY_MAX_ADDR; i++) {
         if ((bus->phy_mask & (1 << i)) == 0) {
             struct phy_device *phydev;

             phydev = mdiobus_scan(bus, i);
             if (IS_ERR(phydev)) {
                 err = PTR_ERR(phydev);
                 goto error;
             }
         }
     }
     return 0;

error:
     while (--i >= 0) {
         if (bus->phy_map[i])
             device_unregister(&bus->phy_map[i]->dev);
     }
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(mdiobus_full_scan);

Since I am the only one who need this kind of functionnality right now, 
I'm not sure
this is a good idea to export a new function.

This behaviour may be implemented in the of_mdiobus_register function:
when no dt phy node are found in the mdio bus dt node, we could launch a 
full
scan.

What do you think ?

Best Regards,

Boris

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: boris brezillon <b.brezillon@overkiz.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc: Nick Bowler <nbowler@elliptictech.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] phylib: mdio: handle register/unregister/register sequence
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:05:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52160CAC.3040603@overkiz.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGVrzcaByva=8xiswcsW1B8G4dL=jY0RdaHKzNqaT_0Lrwbprg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Florian,

Thanks for your answer.

On 22/08/2013 14:43, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Hello Boris,
>
> 2013/8/22 Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon@overkiz.com>:
>> Hello,
>>
>> This patch is a proposal to support the register/unregister/register
>> sequence on a given mdio bus.
>>
>> I use the register/unregister/register sequence to add a fallback when the
>> of_mdiobus_register (this function calls mdiobus_register with phy_mask
>> set to ~0) does not register any phy device (because the device tree does
>> not define any phy).
>> In this case I call mdiobus_unregister and then call mdiobus_register with
>> a phy_mask set to 0 to trigger a full mdio bus scan.
>>
>> I'm not sure this is the right way to do it (this is why I added RFC in the
>> subject).
>>
>> Could someone help me figuring out what I should use to implement my fallback ?
>>
>> 1) use the register/unregister/register sequence
>> 2) reimplement the "for (i = 0; i < PHY_MAX_ADDR; i++)" mdiobus_scan loop
> I think solution 2 is nicer, in that case, would it be enough in your
> case to export a function called mdiobus_scan()? You could call at a
> time you know PHY devices have a chance of having been probed?
mdiobus_scan is already exported:
struct phy_device *mdiobus_scan(struct mii_bus *bus, int addr);

This function scans the presence of a phy device at a given address.

What I need is a loop which scan all the possible address on the given
mdio bus:

struct phy_device *mdiobus_full_scan(struct mii_bus *bus)
{
     int i;
     for (i = 0; i < PHY_MAX_ADDR; i++) {
         if ((bus->phy_mask & (1 << i)) == 0) {
             struct phy_device *phydev;

             phydev = mdiobus_scan(bus, i);
             if (IS_ERR(phydev)) {
                 err = PTR_ERR(phydev);
                 goto error;
             }
         }
     }
     return 0;

error:
     while (--i >= 0) {
         if (bus->phy_map[i])
             device_unregister(&bus->phy_map[i]->dev);
     }
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(mdiobus_full_scan);

Since I am the only one who need this kind of functionnality right now, 
I'm not sure
this is a good idea to export a new function.

This behaviour may be implemented in the of_mdiobus_register function:
when no dt phy node are found in the mdio bus dt node, we could launch a 
full
scan.

What do you think ?

Best Regards,

Boris

  reply	other threads:[~2013-08-22 13:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-08-22 12:33 [RFC PATCH] phylib: mdio: handle register/unregister/register sequence Boris BREZILLON
2013-08-22 12:33 ` Boris BREZILLON
2013-08-22 12:34 ` Boris BREZILLON
2013-08-22 12:34   ` Boris BREZILLON
2013-08-22 12:43 ` Florian Fainelli
2013-08-22 12:43   ` Florian Fainelli
2013-08-22 13:05   ` boris brezillon [this message]
2013-08-22 13:05     ` boris brezillon
2013-08-22 13:05     ` boris brezillon
2013-08-22 13:15     ` Florian Fainelli
2013-08-22 13:15       ` Florian Fainelli
2013-08-22 13:24       ` boris brezillon
2013-08-22 13:24         ` boris brezillon
2013-08-22 13:14 ` boris brezillon
2013-08-22 13:14   ` boris brezillon
2013-08-22 13:14   ` boris brezillon
2013-08-22 15:27 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-22 15:27   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-22 15:38   ` boris brezillon
2013-08-22 15:38     ` boris brezillon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=52160CAC.3040603@overkiz.com \
    --to=b.brezillon@overkiz.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.