Re: [PATCH] bgmac: add helper checking for BCM4707 / BCM53018 chip id
From: Rafał MiłeckiDate: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 07:47:14 +0100 > Chipsets with BCM4707 / BCM53018 ID require special handling at a few > places in the code. It's likely there will be more IDs to check in the > future. To simplify it add this trivial helper. > > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki Applied.
[PATCH] bgmac: add helper checking for BCM4707 / BCM53018 chip id
Chipsets with BCM4707 / BCM53018 ID require special handling at a few places in the code. It's likely there will be more IDs to check in the future. To simplify it add this trivial helper. Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki--- It's the same change as sent few days ago, just resending it in a proper time (with net-next being open). --- drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bgmac.c | 30 -- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bgmac.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bgmac.c index 06f6cff..230f8e6 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bgmac.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bgmac.c @@ -26,6 +26,17 @@ static const struct bcma_device_id bgmac_bcma_tbl[] = { }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(bcma, bgmac_bcma_tbl); +static inline bool bgmac_is_bcm4707_family(struct bgmac *bgmac) +{ + switch (bgmac->core->bus->chipinfo.id) { + case BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM4707: + case BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM53018: + return true; + default: + return false; + } +} + static bool bgmac_wait_value(struct bcma_device *core, u16 reg, u32 mask, u32 value, int timeout) { @@ -987,11 +998,9 @@ static void bgmac_mac_speed(struct bgmac *bgmac) static void bgmac_miiconfig(struct bgmac *bgmac) { struct bcma_device *core = bgmac->core; - struct bcma_chipinfo *ci = >bus->chipinfo; u8 imode; - if (ci->id == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM4707 || - ci->id == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM53018) { + if (bgmac_is_bcm4707_family(bgmac)) { bcma_awrite32(core, BCMA_IOCTL, bcma_aread32(core, BCMA_IOCTL) | 0x40 | BGMAC_BCMA_IOCTL_SW_CLKEN); @@ -1055,9 +1064,7 @@ static void bgmac_chip_reset(struct bgmac *bgmac) } /* Request Misc PLL for corerev > 2 */ - if (core->id.rev > 2 && - ci->id != BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM4707 && - ci->id != BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM53018) { + if (core->id.rev > 2 && !bgmac_is_bcm4707_family(bgmac)) { bgmac_set(bgmac, BCMA_CLKCTLST, BGMAC_BCMA_CLKCTLST_MISC_PLL_REQ); bgmac_wait_value(bgmac->core, BCMA_CLKCTLST, @@ -1193,8 +1200,7 @@ static void bgmac_enable(struct bgmac *bgmac) break; } - if (ci->id != BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM4707 && - ci->id != BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM53018) { + if (!bgmac_is_bcm4707_family(bgmac)) { rxq_ctl = bgmac_read(bgmac, BGMAC_RXQ_CTL); rxq_ctl &= ~BGMAC_RXQ_CTL_MDP_MASK; bp_clk = bcma_pmu_get_bus_clock(>core->bus->drv_cc) / @@ -1472,14 +1478,12 @@ static int bgmac_fixed_phy_register(struct bgmac *bgmac) static int bgmac_mii_register(struct bgmac *bgmac) { - struct bcma_chipinfo *ci = >core->bus->chipinfo; struct mii_bus *mii_bus; struct phy_device *phy_dev; char bus_id[MII_BUS_ID_SIZE + 3]; int err = 0; - if (ci->id == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM4707 || - ci->id == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM53018) + if (bgmac_is_bcm4707_family(bgmac)) return bgmac_fixed_phy_register(bgmac); mii_bus = mdiobus_alloc(); @@ -1539,7 +1543,6 @@ static void bgmac_mii_unregister(struct bgmac *bgmac) /* http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/mac-gbit/gmac/chipattach */ static int bgmac_probe(struct bcma_device *core) { - struct bcma_chipinfo *ci = >bus->chipinfo; struct net_device *net_dev; struct bgmac *bgmac; struct ssb_sprom *sprom = >bus->sprom; @@ -1620,8 +1623,7 @@ static int bgmac_probe(struct bcma_device *core) bgmac_chip_reset(bgmac); /* For Northstar, we have to take all GMAC core out of reset */ - if (ci->id == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM4707 || - ci->id == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM53018) { + if (bgmac_is_bcm4707_family(bgmac)) { struct bcma_device *ns_core; int ns_gmac; -- 1.8.4.5
Re: [PATCH] bgmac: add helper checking for BCM4707 / BCM53018 chip id
On 30 January 2016 at 08:03, David Millerwrote: > From: Rafał Miłecki > Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 00:41:07 +0100 > >> Chipsets with BCM4707 / BCM53018 ID require special handling at a few >> places in the code. It's likely there will be more IDs to check in the >> future. To simplify it add this trivial helper. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki > > The net-next tree is not open, therefore submitting this kind of cleanup > is not appropriate. Oops, I got experience from other trees where patches are just queued (usually with patchwork). I just read about netdev not playing this way in netdev-FAQ.txt, I didn't expect that. I'll resubmit it later. -- Rafał
[PATCH] bgmac: add helper checking for BCM4707 / BCM53018 chip id
Chipsets with BCM4707 / BCM53018 ID require special handling at a few places in the code. It's likely there will be more IDs to check in the future. To simplify it add this trivial helper. Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki--- drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bgmac.c | 30 -- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bgmac.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bgmac.c index 06f6cff..230f8e6 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bgmac.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bgmac.c @@ -26,6 +26,17 @@ static const struct bcma_device_id bgmac_bcma_tbl[] = { }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(bcma, bgmac_bcma_tbl); +static inline bool bgmac_is_bcm4707_family(struct bgmac *bgmac) +{ + switch (bgmac->core->bus->chipinfo.id) { + case BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM4707: + case BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM53018: + return true; + default: + return false; + } +} + static bool bgmac_wait_value(struct bcma_device *core, u16 reg, u32 mask, u32 value, int timeout) { @@ -987,11 +998,9 @@ static void bgmac_mac_speed(struct bgmac *bgmac) static void bgmac_miiconfig(struct bgmac *bgmac) { struct bcma_device *core = bgmac->core; - struct bcma_chipinfo *ci = >bus->chipinfo; u8 imode; - if (ci->id == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM4707 || - ci->id == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM53018) { + if (bgmac_is_bcm4707_family(bgmac)) { bcma_awrite32(core, BCMA_IOCTL, bcma_aread32(core, BCMA_IOCTL) | 0x40 | BGMAC_BCMA_IOCTL_SW_CLKEN); @@ -1055,9 +1064,7 @@ static void bgmac_chip_reset(struct bgmac *bgmac) } /* Request Misc PLL for corerev > 2 */ - if (core->id.rev > 2 && - ci->id != BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM4707 && - ci->id != BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM53018) { + if (core->id.rev > 2 && !bgmac_is_bcm4707_family(bgmac)) { bgmac_set(bgmac, BCMA_CLKCTLST, BGMAC_BCMA_CLKCTLST_MISC_PLL_REQ); bgmac_wait_value(bgmac->core, BCMA_CLKCTLST, @@ -1193,8 +1200,7 @@ static void bgmac_enable(struct bgmac *bgmac) break; } - if (ci->id != BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM4707 && - ci->id != BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM53018) { + if (!bgmac_is_bcm4707_family(bgmac)) { rxq_ctl = bgmac_read(bgmac, BGMAC_RXQ_CTL); rxq_ctl &= ~BGMAC_RXQ_CTL_MDP_MASK; bp_clk = bcma_pmu_get_bus_clock(>core->bus->drv_cc) / @@ -1472,14 +1478,12 @@ static int bgmac_fixed_phy_register(struct bgmac *bgmac) static int bgmac_mii_register(struct bgmac *bgmac) { - struct bcma_chipinfo *ci = >core->bus->chipinfo; struct mii_bus *mii_bus; struct phy_device *phy_dev; char bus_id[MII_BUS_ID_SIZE + 3]; int err = 0; - if (ci->id == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM4707 || - ci->id == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM53018) + if (bgmac_is_bcm4707_family(bgmac)) return bgmac_fixed_phy_register(bgmac); mii_bus = mdiobus_alloc(); @@ -1539,7 +1543,6 @@ static void bgmac_mii_unregister(struct bgmac *bgmac) /* http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/mac-gbit/gmac/chipattach */ static int bgmac_probe(struct bcma_device *core) { - struct bcma_chipinfo *ci = >bus->chipinfo; struct net_device *net_dev; struct bgmac *bgmac; struct ssb_sprom *sprom = >bus->sprom; @@ -1620,8 +1623,7 @@ static int bgmac_probe(struct bcma_device *core) bgmac_chip_reset(bgmac); /* For Northstar, we have to take all GMAC core out of reset */ - if (ci->id == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM4707 || - ci->id == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM53018) { + if (bgmac_is_bcm4707_family(bgmac)) { struct bcma_device *ns_core; int ns_gmac; -- 1.8.4.5
Re: [PATCH] bgmac: add helper checking for BCM4707 / BCM53018 chip id
From: Rafał MiłeckiDate: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 00:41:07 +0100 > Chipsets with BCM4707 / BCM53018 ID require special handling at a few > places in the code. It's likely there will be more IDs to check in the > future. To simplify it add this trivial helper. > > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki The net-next tree is not open, therefore submitting this kind of cleanup is not appropriate.