On 9/9/20 10:38 AM, Richard Leitner wrote: > On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 09:23:26PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 9/4/20 9:02 PM, Richard Leitner wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 05:26:14PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 9/4/20 4:02 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 12:45:44AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>> On 9/4/20 12:08 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>>>>>>>> b4 am 20200903043947.3272453-1-f.faine...@gmail.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That might be a fix for the long run, but I doubt there's any chance to >>>>>>>> backport it all to stable, is there ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. For stable we need something simpler. >>>>>> >>>>>> Like this patch ? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> But i would like to see a Tested-By: or similar from Richard >>>>> Leitner. Why does the current code work for his system? Does your >>>>> change break it? >>>> >>>> I have the IRQ line connected and described in DT. The reset clears the >>>> IRQ settings done by the SMSC PHY driver. The PHY works fine if I use >>>> polling, because then even if no IRQs are generated by the PHY, the PHY >>>> framework reads the status updates from the PHY periodically and the >>>> default settings of the PHY somehow work (even if they are slightly >>>> incorrect). I suspect that's how Richard had it working. >>> >>> I have different PHYs on different PCBs in use, but IIRC none of them >>> has the IRQ line defined in the DT. >>> I will take a look at it, test your patch and give feedback ASAP. >>> Unfortunately it's unlikely that this will be before monday 😕 >>> Hope that's ok. >> >> That's totally fine, thanks ! > > Hi, sorry for the delay. > I've applied the patch to our kernel and did some basic tests on > different custom imx6 PCBs. As everything seems to work fine for our > "non-irq configuration" please feel free to add > > Tested-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leit...@skidata.com>
So can this fix be applied ?
