[PATCH v5 5/7] net: ethernet: bgmac: device tree phy enablement

Jon Mason jon.mason at broadcom.com
Thu Nov 3 09:45:41 PDT 2016


On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:31:21AM +0100, Rafal Milecki wrote:
> On 11/02/2016 06:08 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
> >Change the bgmac driver to allow for phy's defined by the device tree
> 
> This is a late review, I know, sorry... :(
> 
> 
> >+static int bcma_phy_direct_connect(struct bgmac *bgmac)
> >+{
> >+	struct fixed_phy_status fphy_status = {
> >+		.link = 1,
> >+		.speed = SPEED_1000,
> >+		.duplex = DUPLEX_FULL,
> >+	};
> >+	struct phy_device *phy_dev;
> >+	int err;
> >+
> >+	phy_dev = fixed_phy_register(PHY_POLL, &fphy_status, -1, NULL);
> >+	if (!phy_dev || IS_ERR(phy_dev)) {
> >+		dev_err(bgmac->dev, "Failed to register fixed PHY device\n");
> >+		return -ENODEV;
> >+	}
> >+
> >+	err = phy_connect_direct(bgmac->net_dev, phy_dev, bgmac_adjust_link,
> >+				 PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII);
> >+	if (err) {
> >+		dev_err(bgmac->dev, "Connecting PHY failed\n");
> >+		return err;
> >+	}
> >+
> >+	return err;
> >+}
> 
> This bcma specific function looks exactly the same as...
> 
> 
> >+static int platform_phy_direct_connect(struct bgmac *bgmac)
> >+{
> >+	struct fixed_phy_status fphy_status = {
> >+		.link = 1,
> >+		.speed = SPEED_1000,
> >+		.duplex = DUPLEX_FULL,
> >+	};
> >+	struct phy_device *phy_dev;
> >+	int err;
> >+
> >+	phy_dev = fixed_phy_register(PHY_POLL, &fphy_status, -1, NULL);
> >+	if (!phy_dev || IS_ERR(phy_dev)) {
> >+		dev_err(bgmac->dev, "Failed to register fixed PHY device\n");
> >+		return -ENODEV;
> >+	}
> >+
> >+	err = phy_connect_direct(bgmac->net_dev, phy_dev, bgmac_adjust_link,
> >+				 PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII);
> >+	if (err) {
> >+		dev_err(bgmac->dev, "Connecting PHY failed\n");
> >+		return err;
> >+	}
> >+
> >+	return err;
> >+}
> 
> This one.
> 
> Would that make sense to keep bgmac_phy_connect_direct and just use it in
> bcma/platform code?

Yes, I was having the same internal debate.  I hate the duplication of
code, but I really wanted to keep the PHY logic out of the bgmac.c
file.  Do you think it is acceptable to make this an inline function
in bgmac.h?

Thanks,
Jon



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list