On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 10:44:36PM +0000, woojung....@microchip.com wrote:
> > +static int dp83822_suspend(struct phy_device *phydev)
> > +{
> > + int value;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&phydev->lock);
> > + value = phy_read_mmd(phydev, DP83822_DEVADDR,
> > MII_DP83822_WOL_CFG);
> > + mutex_unlock(&phydev->lock);
> Would we need mutex to access phy_read_mmd()?
> phy_read_mmd() has mdio_lock for indirect access.
Hi Woojung
The mdio lock is not sufficient. It protects against two mdio
accesses. But here we need to protect against two phy operations.
There is a danger something else tries to access the phy during
suspend.
> > + if (!(value & DP83822_WOL_EN))
> > + genphy_suspend(phydev);
Releasing the lock before calling genphy_suspend() is not so nice.
Maybe add a version which assumes the lock has already been taken?
Andrew
