Hi,
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:35 PM Harini Katakam [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Andrew, Paul,

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:15 PM Michal Simek [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 21. 02. 19 12:03, Michal Simek wrote:

quoted

On 21. 02. 19 11:24, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 07:58 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On 19. 02. 19 18:25, Andrew Lunn wrote:

<snip>

quoted

quoted

quoted

Understood. I think we need to start a discussion about how the general
design of this driver can be improved.

In particular, I wonder if it could work better to make this driver a
PHY driver that just redirects all its ops to the actual PHY driver,
except for read_status where it should also add some code.

Thanks, I'm looking into this option and also a way to expose the correct
interface mode setting as you mentioned below. I'll get back before the
end of the week. Please do let me know if you have any further suggestions.

This IP does not have a PHY identifier or status register that can be accessed
from the phy framework. We could discuss with our design team to add these
in the future. But that would take sometime and this version should be still be
supported. Also, if this IP has a PHY driver, then two phy drivers would have
to be probed which are connected in a serial manner and I believe I'll have to
update the framework to support that. Could you please let me know if you have
any inputs on this?
OR since this is just a bridge IP, is it acceptable to address the error cases?
-> Module loading/unloading
-> Spinlocks for protection
-> Correct phy mode information to the driver.
-> Any other concerns
I could do a respin of this patch after addressing Andrew's comments:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9290231/

Regards,
Harini

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel