Hi,
On 12/05/16 16:50, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 05/12/2016 05:00 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> The framework only asserts (for now) that the reset gpio is not active.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koe...@pengutronix.de>
>> ---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/phy.txt | 3 +++
>> drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c | 8 ++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/phy.txt
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/phy.txt
>> index bc1c3c8bf8fa..c00a9a894547 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/phy.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/phy.txt
>> @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ Optional Properties:
>> - broken-turn-around: If set, indicates the PHY device does not correctly
>> release the turn around line low at the end of a MDIO transaction.
>>
>> +- reset-gpios: Reference to a GPIO used to reset the phy.
>> +
>> Example:
>>
>> ethernet-phy@0 {
>> @@ -42,4 +44,5 @@ ethernet-phy@0 {
>> interrupt-parent = <40000>;
>> interrupts = <35 1>;
>> reg = <0>;
>> + reset-gpios = <&gpio1 17 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>> };
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>> index e551f3a89cfd..7d666ab47271 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
>> #include <linux/io.h>
>> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>> #include <linux/of.h>
>> +#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
>>
>> #include <asm/irq.h>
>>
>> @@ -1569,9 +1570,16 @@ static int phy_probe(struct device *dev)
>> struct device_driver *drv = phydev->mdio.dev.driver;
>> struct phy_driver *phydrv = to_phy_driver(drv);
>> int err = 0;
>> + struct gpio_descs *reset_gpios;
>>
>> phydev->drv = phydrv;
>>
>> + /* take phy out of reset */
>> + reset_gpios = devm_gpiod_get_array_optional(dev, "reset",
>> + GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
>> + if (IS_ERR(reset_gpios))
>> + return PTR_ERR(reset_gpios);
>> +
>> /* Disable the interrupt if the PHY doesn't support it
>> * but the interrupt is still a valid one
>> */
>>
>
> This looks like the right approach to me at least: I see that TI EVMs
> will also benefit with this approach.
>
Agreed. Although on some of our boards we actually need a RESET pulse
to get the PHY in a sane state. I can send a patch on top for that.
Reviewed-by: Roger Quadros <rog...@ti.com>
--
cheers,
-roger
