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
