On 13/09/2016 02:40, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> > +static int
>> > +qca8k_get_eee(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>> > + struct ethtool_eee *e)
>> > +{
>> > + struct qca8k_priv *priv = qca8k_to_priv(ds);
>> > + struct ethtool_eee *p = &priv->port_sts[qca8k_phy_to_port(port)].eee;
>> > + u32 lp, adv, supported;
>> > + u16 val;
>> > +
>> > + /* The switch has no way to tell the result of the AN so we need to
>> > + * read the result directly from the PHYs MMD registers
>> > + */
>> > + val = qca8k_phy_mmd_read(priv, port, MDIO_MMD_PCS, MDIO_PCS_EEE_ABLE);
>> > + supported = mmd_eee_cap_to_ethtool_sup_t(val);
>> > +
>> > + val = qca8k_phy_mmd_read(priv, port, MDIO_MMD_AN, MDIO_AN_EEE_ADV);
>> > + adv = mmd_eee_adv_to_ethtool_adv_t(val);
>> > +
>> > + val = qca8k_phy_mmd_read(priv, port, MDIO_MMD_AN, MDIO_AN_EEE_LPABLE);
>> > + lp = mmd_eee_adv_to_ethtool_adv_t(val);
>> > +
>> > + e->eee_enabled = p->eee_enabled;
>> > + e->eee_active = !!(supported & adv & lp);
>> > +
>> > + return 0;
>> > +}
> Couldn't you just call phy_ethtool_get_eee(phydev)? Then you don't
> need qca8k_phy_mmd_read()?
Hi Andrew,
this function does indeed duplicate the functionality of
phy_ethtool_get_eee() with the small difference, that e->eee_active is
also set which phy_ethtool_get_eee() does not set.
dsa_slave_get_eee() will call phy_ethtool_get_eee() right after the
get_eee() op has been called. would it be ok to move the code setting
eee_active to phy_ethtool_get_eee(). if thats possible then we could
just have a stub inside the dsa driver with a note saying that the dsa
layer will do the magic for us.
John
