Re: [RFC PATCH 11/17] sh_eth: Don't unnecessarily reset the PHY

[Moffett, Kyle D]

On Oct 25, 2011, at 07:11, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> 2011/10/21 6:00, Kyle Moffett wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Kyle Moffett <Kyle.D.Moffett@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/sh_eth.c |   19 +------------------
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/sh_eth.c b/drivers/net/sh_eth.c
>> index 1c1666e..7ef4378 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/sh_eth.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/sh_eth.c
>> @@ -1235,23 +1235,6 @@ static int sh_eth_phy_init(struct net_device *ndev)
>> 	return 0;
>> }
>> 
>> -/* PHY control start function */
>> -static int sh_eth_phy_start(struct net_device *ndev)
>> -{
>> -	struct sh_eth_private *mdp = netdev_priv(ndev);
>> -	int ret;
>> -
>> -	ret = sh_eth_phy_init(ndev);
>> -	if (ret)
>> -		return ret;
>> -
>> -	/* reset phy - this also wakes it from PDOWN */
>> -	phy_write(mdp->phydev, MII_BMCR, BMCR_RESET);
>> -	phy_start(mdp->phydev);
> 
> I think that the driver needs the phy_start().
> So, I removed the phy_write() only. Then, the driver could work correctly.
> 
> Therefore, I would to remove the following code only.
> Do you think about this?
> 
>> -	/* reset phy - this also wakes it from PDOWN */
>> -	phy_write(mdp->phydev, MII_BMCR, BMCR_RESET);

You're right, sorry about that.  I think I mis-merged this when I rebased
from a much earlier commit.  The simple removal of the BMCR_RESET write
should achieve what I was intending.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

--
Curious about my work on the Debian powerpcspe port?
I'm keeping a blog here: http://pureperl.blogspot.com/

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/