Hi,
On 22/11/16 12:07, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 11/22/2016 12:02 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >> +static int bcm7xxx_28nm_set_tunable(struct phy_device *phydev,
> >> + struct ethtool_tunable *tuna,
> >> + const void *data)
> >> +{
> >> + u8 count = *(u8 *)data;
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + switch (tuna->id) {
> >> + case ETHTOOL_PHY_DOWNSHIFT:
> >> + ret = bcm_phy_downshift_set(phydev, count);
> >> + break;
> >> + default:
> >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + return ret;
> >> +
> >> + /* Disable EEE advertisment since this prevents the PHY
> >> + * from successfully linking up, trigger auto-negotiation restart
> >> + * to let the MAC decide what to do.
> >> + */
> >> + ret = bcm_phy_set_eee(phydev, count == DOWNSHIFT_DEV_DISABLE);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + return ret;
> >> +
> >> + return genphy_restart_aneg(phydev);
> >> +}
> >
> > Hi Florian
> >
> > Is the locking O.K. here? The core code does not take the phy lock.
> > But i think your shadow register accesses at least need to be
> > protected by the lock?
>
> There should be some kind of protection, but I was expecting it to be
> done at the caller level, so that when {get,set}_tunable run, they are
> serialized with respect to each other, clearly, by looking at the code,
> this is not the case.
>
> >
> > Maybe we should think about this locking a bit. It is normal for the
> > lock to be held when using ops in the phy driver structure. The
> > exception is suspend/resume. Maybe we should also take the lock before
> > calling the phydev->drv->get_tunable() and phydev->drv->set_tunable()?
>
> Yes, that certainly seems like a good approach to me, let me cook a
> patch doing that.
Just for my understanding (such that I will not make the same mistake again)...
Why is it that phy functions such as get_wol needs to take the phy_lock and
others like get_tunable does not.
I do understand the arguments on why the lock should be held by the caller of
get_tunable, but I do not understand why the same argument does not apply for
get_wol.
/Allan
