On 04.03.2019 16:44, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 03:07:24PM +0000, Jose Abreu wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On 3/1/2019 1:53 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 11:54:24AM +0100, Jose Abreu wrote:
>>>> +static inline int phy_update_link(struct phy_device *phydev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + if (!phydev->drv)
>>>> + return -EIO;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (phydev->drv->read_status)
>>>> + return phydev->drv->read_status(phydev);
>>>> + else if (phydev->is_c45)
>>>> + return gen10g_read_status(phydev);
>>>> + else
>>>> + return genphy_update_link(phydev);
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Hi Jose
>>>
>>> The asymmetry here could be an issue. We might fall into the trap
>>> that a c45 PHY has the full state in phydev updated, were as a c22
>>> only has the link updated. Somebody testing on C45 might miss a bug
>>> for a C22 device.
>>
>> Notice that this phy_update_link() is called from PHY_FORCING
>> state which in my case happens when autoneg is not enabled / is
>> not supported.
>>
>> I think it makes sense, in this case, to only update link status,
>> no ?
>
> Hi Jose
>
> It is actually quite difficult to determine when the link is up. I
> personally would not trust gen10g_read_status() to get this right, and
> would always implement the read_status callback.
>
Not to forget that we just stopped exporting gen10g_read_status().
genphy_c45_read_link() seems to be the right function to be used
in phy_update_link().
> Which PHY driver are you using, which does not support
> read_status(). All the mainline PHY drivers do seem to have
> read_status implemented.
>
> Andrew
>
Heiner
