mail archive of the barebox mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Barebox List <barebox@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: designware: eqos: reset phy
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 09:31:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2166dc52-64da-14bb-987c-7000c31c6882@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210607222233.GB5267@pengutronix.de>

Hello Sascha,

On 08.06.21 00:22, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 05:59:02PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>> Hello Sascha,
>>
>> On 07.06.21 16:10, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>>> The designware eqos DT binding has support for specifying reset GPIOs.
>>> Add support for them.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/net/designware_eqos.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  drivers/of/of_gpio.c          |  7 +++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 40 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/designware_eqos.c b/drivers/net/designware_eqos.c
>>> index d2baaeaf63..0321024169 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/designware_eqos.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/designware_eqos.c
>>> @@ -8,9 +8,11 @@
>>>  
>>>  #include <common.h>
>>>  #include <init.h>
>>> +#include <gpio.h>
>>>  #include <dma.h>
>>>  #include <net.h>
>>>  #include <of_net.h>
>>> +#include <of_gpio.h>
>>>  #include <linux/iopoll.h>
>>>  #include <linux/time.h>
>>>  #include <linux/sizes.h>
>>> @@ -189,6 +191,33 @@ struct eqos_desc {
>>>  
>>>  #define MII_BUSY		(1 << 0)
>>>  
>>> +static int eqos_phy_reset(struct device_d *dev, struct eqos *eqos)
>>> +{
>>> +	int phy_reset;
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +	u32 delays[3] = { 0, 0, 0 };
>>> +
>>> +	phy_reset = of_get_named_gpio(dev->device_node, "snps,reset-gpio", 0);
>>> +
>>> +        if (!gpio_is_valid(phy_reset))
>>> +		return 0;
>>
>> Whitespace is wrong.
>>
>>> +
>>> +	ret = gpio_request(phy_reset, "phy-reset");
>>> +	if (ret)
>>> +		return ret;
>>
>> Can you use gpiod_get instead? This would reduce the boilerplate here.
> 
> Sure. I didn't realize I don't honour the active high/low flags the way
> I did it.
> 
>>
>>> +
>>> +	of_property_read_u32_array(dev->device_node,
>>> +				   "snps,reset-delays-us",
>>> +				   delays, ARRAY_SIZE(delays));
>>> +
>>
>> Looks strange to read out a delay and not act on it. I'd prefer
>> waiting delays[0] here.
> 
> Yes, it looks strange, but that's because the binding doesn't make much
> sense. Why should I insert a delay before doing anything?

                   .--------.

     POR --------->|R  flip |---- Regulator ----> PHY VDD

                .->|S  flop |

                |  `--------'

                |   

                |   

                |

RESET GPIO -----'`-------------------------------> PHY Reset

(active low)

It's stupid, but it works with Linux and wouldn't with barebox
(if PHY VDD takes too long to stabilize)... ^^'

> I can a delay here, it wouldn't make much difference as all users except
> one specify zero delay here anyway. For the one exception I would bet
> someone has inserted the first delay without a good reason, they are all
> 10000.

That's probably true. I still think mimicking Linux' interpretation
of bindings is a good general rule to follow.

>>
>>> +	gpio_direction_active(phy_reset, 0);
>>
>> This always sets logical zero, because gpio_request above doesn't
>> accept a flag telling it otherwise. You'll need of_get_named_gpio_flags
>> here, at which point, you'll have basically open-coded gpiod_get(), so
>> you could use that.
> 
> Right.
> 
>>
>>> +	udelay(delays[1]);
>>
>> Linux rounds up to 1 msec granularity here. We should do likewise.
> 
> I don't see a good reason for that. The Linux driver used udelay()
> initially, that was changed to msleep as the times were too long for
> busy waiting. I have no clue why the author didn't use usleep_range
> instead.

Same reason: Device trees are tested with Linux. They've a better chance
of just working when we round up wait times the same way.

> 
>>
>>> +	gpio_set_active(phy_reset, 1);
>>
>> Nitpick: true/false.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> Sascha
> 

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox


  reply	other threads:[~2021-06-08  7:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-07 14:10 Sascha Hauer
2021-06-07 14:10 ` [PATCH 2/2] net: eqos: Rockchip support Sascha Hauer
2021-06-07 16:05   ` Ahmad Fatoum
2021-06-07 15:59 ` [PATCH 1/2] net: designware: eqos: reset phy Ahmad Fatoum
2021-06-07 22:22   ` Sascha Hauer
2021-06-08  7:31     ` Ahmad Fatoum [this message]
2021-06-08  8:58       ` Sascha Hauer
2021-06-09  8:04         ` Ahmad Fatoum

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=2166dc52-64da-14bb-987c-7000c31c6882@pengutronix.de \
    --to=a.fatoum@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: designware: eqos: reset phy' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox