On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:57:28AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:47:18AM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 09:38:39AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 03:12:13AM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:

quoted

@@ -1310,10 +1302,6 @@ static int at803x_cable_test_start(struct phy_device *phydev)
 	 */
 	phy_write(phydev, MII_BMCR, BMCR_ANENABLE);
 	phy_write(phydev, MII_ADVERTISE, ADVERTISE_CSMA);
-	if (phydev->phy_id != ATH9331_PHY_ID &&
-	    phydev->phy_id != ATH8032_PHY_ID &&
-	    phydev->phy_id != QCA9561_PHY_ID)
-		phy_write(phydev, MII_CTRL1000, 0);

...

quoted

+static int at8031_cable_test_start(struct phy_device *phydev)
+{
+	at803x_cable_test_start(phydev);
+	phy_write(phydev, MII_CTRL1000, 0);

I don't think this is a safe change - same reasons as given on a
previous patch. You can't randomly reorder register writes like this.

Actually for this the order is keeped. Generic function is called and
for at8031 MII_CTRL1000 is called on top of that.

Okay, but I don't like it. I would prefer this to be:

static void at803x_cable_test_autoneg(struct phy_device *phydev)
{
	phy_write(phydev, MII_BMCR, BMCR_ANENABLE);
	phy_write(phydev, MII_ADVERTISE, ADVERTISE_CSMA);
}

static int at803x_cable_test_start(struct phy_device *phydev)
{
	at803x_cable_test_autoneg(phydev);
	return 0;
}

static int at8031_cable_test_start(struct phy_device *phydev)
{
	at803x_cable_test_autoneg(phydev);
	phy_write(phydev, MII_CTRL1000, 0);
	return 0;
}

which makes it more explicit what is going on here. Also a comment
above the function stating that it's for AR8031 _and_ AR8035 would
be useful.

Much cleaner thanks for the hint!

-- 
	Ansuel