Re: [RFC PATCH 03/11] phy: ti: introduce phy-gmii-sel driver
From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
Date: 2018-10-09 20:22:32
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-omap, lkml
Hi Andrew, On 10/08/2018 07:39 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 06:49:41PM -0500, Grygorii Strashko wrote:quoted
+static int phy_gmii_sel_mode(struct phy *phy, phy_interface_t intf_mode) +{ + struct phy_gmii_sel_phy_priv *if_phy = phy_get_drvdata(phy); + const struct phy_gmii_sel_soc_data *soc_data = if_phy->priv->soc_data; + struct device *dev = if_phy->priv->dev; + struct regmap_field *regfield; + int ret, rgmii_id = 0; + u32 mode = 0; + + if_phy->phy_if_mode = intf_mode; + + switch (if_phy->phy_if_mode) { + case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RMII: + mode = AM33XX_GMII_SEL_MODE_RMII; + break; + + case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII: + mode = AM33XX_GMII_SEL_MODE_RGMII; + break; + + case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_ID: + case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_RXID: + case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_TXID: + mode = AM33XX_GMII_SEL_MODE_RGMII; + rgmii_id = 1; + break;Hi Grygorii It looks like the MAC can do AM33XX_GMII_SEL_MODE_RGMII and AM33XX_GMII_SEL_MODE_RGMII_ID. I don't think it can do AM33XX_GMII_SEL_MODE_RGMII_RXID or AM33XX_GMII_SEL_MODE_RGMII_TXID?
Sry, but would prefer not to thought this logic as part of this series as i moved it here unchanged rom cpsw-phy-sel.c (except adding possibility to update only supported field) and any changes here would require separate review (including all existing TI DT boards) and testing. I
would prefer it return -EINVAL when asked to do something it cannot do.
Just to clarify rgmii_id = 1 means *disable* CPSW Internal Delay Mode.
quoted
+ + default: + dev_warn(dev, + "port%u: unsupported mode: \"%s\". Defaulting to MII.\n", + if_phy->id, phy_modes(rgmii_id)); + /* fall through */Returning -EINVAL would be better. Otherwise the DT might never get fixed.
ok
quoted
+ case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII: + mode = AM33XX_GMII_SEL_MODE_MII; + break; + }; + + dev_dbg(dev, "%s id:%u mode:%u rgmii_id:%d rmii_clk_ext:%d\n", + __func__, if_phy->id, mode, rgmii_id, + if_phy->rmii_clock_external); + + regfield = if_phy->fields[PHY_GMII_SEL_PORT_MODE]; + ret = regmap_field_write(regfield, mode); + + if (soc_data->features & BIT(PHY_GMII_SEL_RGMII_ID_MODE) && + if_phy->fields[PHY_GMII_SEL_RGMII_ID_MODE]) { + regfield = if_phy->fields[PHY_GMII_SEL_RGMII_ID_MODE]; + ret |= regmap_field_write(regfield, rgmii_id); + } + + if (soc_data->features & BIT(PHY_GMII_SEL_RMII_IO_CLK_EN) && + if_phy->fields[PHY_GMII_SEL_RMII_IO_CLK_EN]) { + regfield = if_phy->fields[PHY_GMII_SEL_RMII_IO_CLK_EN]; + ret |= regmap_field_write(regfield, + if_phy->rmii_clock_external); + } + + if (ret) { + dev_err(dev, "port%u: set mode fail %d", if_phy->id, ret); + return -EIO; + }I would prefer each write had its own error check. The fact you don't return ret means you know ret could be -EINVAL|-EOIO, making -EMORECOFFEE.
:) right, sry. -- regards, -grygorii