Le 11/04/2016 04:28, Andrew Lunn a écrit :
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 01:25:03AM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>> With the 'phylib' now being aware of the "reset-gpios" PHY node property,
>> there should be no need to frob the PHY reset in this driver anymore...
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtyl...@cogentembedded.com>
>>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/macb.c | 17 -----------------
>> drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/macb.h | 1 -
>> 2 files changed, 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: net-next/drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/macb.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- net-next.orig/drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/macb.c
>> +++ net-next/drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/macb.c
>> @@ -2884,7 +2884,6 @@ static int macb_probe(struct platform_de
>> = macb_clk_init;
>> int (*init)(struct platform_device *) = macb_init;
>> struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
>> - struct device_node *phy_node;
>> const struct macb_config *macb_config = NULL;
>> struct clk *pclk, *hclk = NULL, *tx_clk = NULL;
>> unsigned int queue_mask, num_queues;
>> @@ -2977,18 +2976,6 @@ static int macb_probe(struct platform_de
>> else
>> macb_get_hwaddr(bp);
>>
>> - /* Power up the PHY if there is a GPIO reset */
>> - phy_node = of_get_next_available_child(np, NULL);
>> - if (phy_node) {
>> - int gpio = of_get_named_gpio(phy_node, "reset-gpios", 0);
>> -
>> - if (gpio_is_valid(gpio)) {
>> - bp->reset_gpio = gpio_to_desc(gpio);
>> - gpiod_direction_output(bp->reset_gpio, 1);
>
> Hi Sergei
>
> The code you are deleting would of ignored the flags in the gpio
I don't parse this.
The code deleted does take the flag into account. And the DT property
associated to it seems correct to me (I mean, with proper flag
specification).
> property, i.e. active low. The new code in the previous patch does
> however take the flags into account. Did you check if there are any
> device trees which have flags, which were never used, but are now
> going to be used and thus break...
Flag was used and you are saying that it's taken into account in new
code... So, what's the issue?
I see a difference in the way the "value" of gpiod_* functions is used.
There may be a misunderstanding here...
Bye,
--
Nicolas Ferre
