On 16.01.2019 22:48, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 09:25:15PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote: >> Every driver should have called phy_stop() before calling >> phy_disconnect(). Let's check for this and ensure PHY is stopped >> when starting with the actual work in phy_disconnect(). > > Hi Heiner > > Looking at the patch, i think why must the MAC driver call phy_stop() > before phy_disconnect()? It keeps is symmetrical, you need > phy_connect() and then phy_start(). But if the core can detect that > phy_stop() has not been called, and can call phy_stop() when needed, > we can probably simplify the MAC drivers by removing many of the > phy_stop() calls. > > I think it might come down to where the phy_connect()/phy_disconnect() > is performed. Sometimes it is in probe()/remove(), sometimes it is in > open()/close(). If phy_disconnect() is in remove(), phy_stop() is > needed in close(). But if phy_disconnect() is called in close() the > phy_stop() could be skipped? > Right, there may be cases where this is possible. However typically I see the following in network drivers in close(): - first different things are stopped / cleaned up, where order is critical (stopping PHY, tx queues, ..) - then resources are released (free interrupt, ..) Therefore I assume that in most cases the split to phy_stop() and phy_disconnect() is needed.
> Before we start adding warning, we probably should first document the > expectations. Documentation/networking/phy.txt seems like a good > place. > Indeed, that's something we should do. > Andrew > Heiner
