On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 11:06:56 PM CET Andrew Lunn wrote:
On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 10:42:52PM +0100, Marco von Rosenberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 1:31:11 AM CET Andrew Lunn wrote:
Are we talking about a device which as been suspended? The PHY has
been left running because there is no suspend callback? Something then
triggers a resume. The bootloader then suspends the active PHY? Linux
then boots, detects its a resume, so does not touch the hardware
because there is no resume callback? The suspended PHY is then
useless.
Hi Andrew,
thanks for your feedback. I guess a bit of context is missing here. The
issue has nothing to do with an ordinary suspension of the OS. The main
point is that on initial power-up, the bootloader suspends the PHY before
booting Linux. With a resume callback defined, Linux would call it on
boot and make the PHY usable.
Ah, so you rely on phy_attach_direct() calling phy_resume(phydev).
This seems an odd way to solve the problem. It was not Linux which
suspend the PHY, so using resume is asymmetric.
I think soft_reset() or config_init() should be taking the PHY out of
suspend.
I agree with all of your points. This is just one way which happens to solve
this specific problem. Of course it might be asymmetric to see the patch as
a solution to my problem. However is there anything fundamentally wrong with
adding suspend/resume callbacks? I see some other drivers having these
callbacks defined and some not (it seems a bit inconsistent throughout the
drivers in broadcom.c to be honest).
I'm wondering if I should just omit this whole "motivation" paragraph in the
commit message and just use the commit message of commit 38b6a9073007 ("net:
phy: broadcom: Wire suspend/resume for BCM50610 and BCM50610M") as a template.
I mean, regardless of my motivation, I would say it makes sense for this PHY
to support suspend and resume.