On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:16, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 09:37:22AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> +static int ksz8893m_setup(struct dsa_switch *ds)
>>> +{
>>> + int i;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + ret = ksz8893m_switch_reset(ds);
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> + return ret;
>>
>> It's pretty ugly that the mdiobus is passed in via the normal means,
>> but a reference to the SPI bus to use is just stuffed into some global
>> variable.
>>
>> Can you not access all registers via MII?
>
> it depends on the host mdio bus. if it supports the semi-standard
> behavior of toggling the OP field of MDIO frames, then yes, you can do
> it via MII. but i dont think the current mdio framework in the kernel
> keeps track of that functionality, so there isnt a way in the driver
> to say "is this possible, else fall back to SPI".
>
Are you referring to SMI ?
> certainly the part that was used to develop this driver does not
> support this behavior thus SPI is the only way of accessing the
> extended registers. i guess the driver could be extended so that
> people could pick which mode they want to program the registers via
> platform resources, but we have no way of testing that, so i say let
> the person who actually can use & wants that functionality implement
> it.
>
>> (If not, struct dsa_chip_data will need go be extended with another
>> struct device pointer that we can use to find the spi bus with.)
>
> if the framework supports, i can convert the driver to it, but i'm not
> sure we have the time atm to tackle reworking common frameworks.
>
If someone tackles this, it would be nice that they bear in mind that
phylib's drivers also need spi/smi/i2c register access.
>>> +static int ksz8893m_port_to_phy_addr(int port)
>>> +{
>>> + if (port >= 1 && port <= KSZ8893M_PORT_NUM)
>>> + return port;
>>> +
>>> + pr_warning("use default phy addr 3\n");
>>> + return 3;
>>
>> Does this ever happen? You should just be able to return -1 here, IMHO.
>
> i dont recall seeing a warning, but presumably if it it did occur,
> something else needs fixing. so -1 is OK.
>
I would remove this.
--
Karl
_______________________________________________
Uclinux-dist-devel mailing list
Uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org
https://blackfin.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dist-devel
