From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from 9.mo5.mail-out.ovh.net ([178.32.96.204] helo=mo5.mail-out.ovh.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1T9szS-0000er-Ux for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 07:28:36 +0000 Received: from mail434.ha.ovh.net (b9.ovh.net [213.186.33.59]) by mo5.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id EC5C6FF9FD1 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:33:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:28:30 +0200 From: Eric =?ISO-8859-1?B?QuluYXJk?= Message-ID: <20120907092830.63416f87@eb-e6520> In-Reply-To: <20120907064419.GL26594@pengutronix.de> References: <1346960371-4129-1-git-send-email-eric@eukrea.com> <1346960371-4129-3-git-send-email-eric@eukrea.com> <20120907064419.GL26594@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: barebox-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] miidev: fix 1G wrong detection To: Sascha Hauer Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org Le Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:44:19 +0200, Sascha Hauer a =E9crit : > On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 09:39:31PM +0200, Eric B=E9nard wrote: > > since 99e72c8bbdbdc690025a5868d831f1fe79ad56fc on an i.MX51 based board, > > I get : "phy0: Link is up - 1000/Full". It seems miidev tries to probe > > the PHY to early and gets 0x3ffff which leads to the wrong capabilities > > setting. > > = > > Signed-off-by: Eric B=E9nard > > --- > > drivers/net/miidev.c | 33 +++++++++------------------------ > > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > = > > diff --git a/drivers/net/miidev.c b/drivers/net/miidev.c > > index 75b53e3..e0f9d67 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/miidev.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/miidev.c > > @@ -131,6 +131,14 @@ int miidev_get_status(struct mii_device *mdev) > > = > > status =3D ret & BMSR_LSTATUS ? MIIDEV_STATUS_IS_UP : 0; > > = > > + if (ret & BMSR_ESTATEN) { > > + ret =3D mii_read(mdev, mdev->address, MII_ESTATUS); > > + if (ret < 0) > > + goto err_out; > > + if (ret & (ESTATUS_1000_TFULL | ESTATUS_1000_THALF)) > > + mdev->capabilities =3D MIIDEV_CAPABLE_1000M; > > + } > > + > > ret =3D mii_read(mdev, mdev->address, MII_BMCR); > > if (ret < 0) > > goto err_out; > > @@ -239,27 +247,8 @@ static struct file_operations miidev_ops =3D { > > static int miidev_probe(struct device_d *dev) > > { > > struct mii_device *mdev =3D dev->priv; > > - int val; > > - int caps =3D 0; > > = > > - val =3D mii_read(mdev, mdev->address, MII_PHYSID1); > > - if (val < 0 || val =3D=3D 0xffff) > > - goto err_out; > > - val =3D mii_read(mdev, mdev->address, MII_PHYSID2); > > - if (val < 0 || val =3D=3D 0xffff) > > - goto err_out; > = > Is the above necessary? This was present before the patch which made the > regression. > = well there is no interest as we don't check the value read (and in the present case I also get 0x3ffff here). Eric _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox