Hi Wenzhou, "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com> writes:
> Hi Aaron, > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Aaron Conole [mailto:aconole at redhat.com] >> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:49 AM >> To: dev at dpdk.org >> Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo; Zhang, Helin; Ananyev, Konstantin; Richardson, Bruce >> Subject: [PATCH 3/8] drivers/net/e1000: Fix missing brackets >> >> The register read/write mphy functions have misleading whitespace around the >> locked check. This cleanup merely preserves the existing functionality while >> improving the ready check. >> >> Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <aconole at redhat.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/e1000/base/e1000_phy.c | 12 ++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000/base/e1000_phy.c >> b/drivers/net/e1000/base/e1000_phy.c >> index d43b7ce..8642d38 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/e1000/base/e1000_phy.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/e1000/base/e1000_phy.c >> @@ -4153,13 +4153,13 @@ s32 e1000_read_phy_reg_mphy(struct e1000_hw >> *hw, u32 address, u32 *data) >> *data = E1000_READ_REG(hw, E1000_MPHY_DATA); >> >> /* Disable access to mPHY if it was originally disabled */ >> - if (locked) >> + if (locked) { >> ready = e1000_is_mphy_ready(hw); >> if (!ready) >> return -E1000_ERR_PHY; >> - E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, E1000_MPHY_ADDR_CTRL, >> - E1000_MPHY_DIS_ACCESS); >> + } >> >> + E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, E1000_MPHY_ADDR_CTRL, >> E1000_MPHY_DIS_ACCESS); >> return E1000_SUCCESS; >> } >> >> @@ -4218,13 +4218,13 @@ s32 e1000_write_phy_reg_mphy(struct e1000_hw >> *hw, u32 address, u32 data, >> E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, E1000_MPHY_DATA, data); >> >> /* Disable access to mPHY if it was originally disabled */ >> - if (locked) >> + if (locked) { >> ready = e1000_is_mphy_ready(hw); >> if (!ready) >> return -E1000_ERR_PHY; >> - E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, E1000_MPHY_ADDR_CTRL, >> - E1000_MPHY_DIS_ACCESS); >> + } >> >> + E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, E1000_MPHY_ADDR_CTRL, >> E1000_MPHY_DIS_ACCESS); >> return E1000_SUCCESS; >> } >> >> -- >> 2.5.0 > Normally we will not maintain the base code. It's just taken from kernel > driver. > Agree with you that the whitespace is misleading. But as it's no real > impact. I'd like to say not a big deal, better not change it. :) Thanks for this hint. It turns out my patch is wrong. It should actually be this (and I've confirmed by looking at the drivers): diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000/base/e1000_phy.c b/drivers/net/e1000/base/e1000_phy.c index d43b7ce..ad3fd58 100644 --- a/drivers/net/e1000/base/e1000_phy.c +++ b/drivers/net/e1000/base/e1000_phy.c @@ -4153,12 +4153,12 @@ s32 e1000_read_phy_reg_mphy(struct e1000_hw *hw, u32 address, u32 *data) *data = E1000_READ_REG(hw, E1000_MPHY_DATA); /* Disable access to mPHY if it was originally disabled */ - if (locked) + if (locked) { ready = e1000_is_mphy_ready(hw); if (!ready) return -E1000_ERR_PHY; - E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, E1000_MPHY_ADDR_CTRL, - E1000_MPHY_DIS_ACCESS); + E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, E1000_MPHY_ADDR_CTRL, E1000_MPHY_DIS_ACCESS); + } return E1000_SUCCESS; } @@ -4218,12 +4218,12 @@ s32 e1000_write_phy_reg_mphy(struct e1000_hw *hw, u32 address, u32 data, E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, E1000_MPHY_DATA, data); /* Disable access to mPHY if it was originally disabled */ - if (locked) + if (locked) { ready = e1000_is_mphy_ready(hw); if (!ready) return -E1000_ERR_PHY; - E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, E1000_MPHY_ADDR_CTRL, - E1000_MPHY_DIS_ACCESS); + E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, E1000_MPHY_ADDR_CTRL, E1000_MPHY_DIS_ACCESS); + } return E1000_SUCCESS; } I will cook up a v2 of this patch if it makes sense. It is a real bug, so should be fixed. -Aaron
