> +static void __hellcreek_select_port(struct hellcreek *hellcreek, int port)
Hi Kurt
In general, please can you drop all these __ prefixes. They are useful
when you have for example hellcreek_select_port() takes a lock and
then calls _hellcreek_select_port(), but here, there is no need for
them.
> +static int hellcreek_detect(struct hellcreek *hellcreek)
> +{
> + u8 tgd_maj, tgd_min;
> + u16 id, rel_low, rel_high, date_low, date_high, tgd_ver;
> + u32 rel, date;
Reverse Christmas tree please. Here and everywhere else.
> +
> + id = hellcreek_read(hellcreek, HR_MODID_C);
> + rel_low = hellcreek_read(hellcreek, HR_REL_L_C);
> + rel_high = hellcreek_read(hellcreek, HR_REL_H_C);
> + date_low = hellcreek_read(hellcreek, HR_BLD_L_C);
> + date_high = hellcreek_read(hellcreek, HR_BLD_H_C);
> + tgd_ver = hellcreek_read(hellcreek, TR_TGDVER);
> +
> + if (id != HELLCREEK_MODULE_ID)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + rel = rel_low | (rel_high << 16);
> + date = date_low | (date_high << 16);
> + tgd_maj = (tgd_ver & TR_TGDVER_REV_MAJ_MASK) >> TR_TGDVER_REV_MAJ_SHIFT;
> + tgd_min = (tgd_ver & TR_TGDVER_REV_MIN_MASK) >> TR_TGDVER_REV_MIN_SHIFT;
> +
> + dev_info(hellcreek->dev, "Module ID=%02x Release=%04x Date=%04x TGD
> Version=%02x.%02x\n",
> + id, rel, date, tgd_maj, tgd_min);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +static int hellcreek_port_enable(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> + struct phy_device *phy)
> +{
> + struct hellcreek *hellcreek = ds->priv;
> + struct hellcreek_port *hellcreek_port = &hellcreek->ports[port];
> + unsigned long flags;
> + u16 val;
> +
> + if (port >= NUM_PORTS)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + dev_info(hellcreek->dev, "Enable port %d\n", port);
dev_dbg().
+
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&hellcreek->reg_lock, flags);
I've not seen any interrupt handling code in the driver, and there is
no mention of an interrupt in the DT binding. Do you really need
_irqsave spin locks?
> +
> + __hellcreek_select_port(hellcreek, port);
> + val = hellcreek_port->ptcfg;
> + val |= HR_PTCFG_ADMIN_EN;
> + hellcreek_write(hellcreek, val, HR_PTCFG);
> + hellcreek_port->ptcfg = val;
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hellcreek->reg_lock, flags);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void hellcreek_port_disable(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)
> +{
> + struct hellcreek *hellcreek = ds->priv;
> + struct hellcreek_port *hellcreek_port = &hellcreek->ports[port];
> + unsigned long flags;
> + u16 val;
> +
> + if (port >= NUM_PORTS)
> + return;
I don't think this test is actually needed, here or in any of the
other callbacks. If it does happen, it means we have a core bug we
should fix.
> +
> + dev_info(hellcreek->dev, "Disable port %d\n", port);
dev_dbg()
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&hellcreek->reg_lock, flags);
> +
> + __hellcreek_select_port(hellcreek, port);
> + val = hellcreek_port->ptcfg;
> + val &= ~HR_PTCFG_ADMIN_EN;
> + hellcreek_write(hellcreek, val, HR_PTCFG);
> + hellcreek_port->ptcfg = val;
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hellcreek->reg_lock, flags);
> +}
> +
> +static void hellcreek_get_ethtool_stats(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> + uint64_t *data)
> +{
> + struct hellcreek *hellcreek = ds->priv;
> + struct hellcreek_port *hellcreek_port = &hellcreek->ports[port];
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int i;
> +
> + if (port >= NUM_PORTS)
> + return;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&hellcreek->reg_lock, flags);
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(hellcreek_counter); ++i) {
> + const struct hellcreek_counter *counter = &hellcreek_counter[i];
> + u8 offset = counter->offset + port * 64;
> + u16 high, low;
> + u64 value = 0;
> +
> + __hellcreek_select_counter(hellcreek, offset);
> +
> + high = hellcreek_read(hellcreek, HR_CRDH);
> + low = hellcreek_read(hellcreek, HR_CRDL);
> + value = (high << 16) | low;
Is there some sort of snapshot happening here? Or do you need to read
high again, to make sure it has not incremented when low was being
read?
> +
> + hellcreek_port->counter_values[i] += value;
> + data[i] = hellcreek_port->counter_values[i];
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hellcreek->reg_lock, flags);
> +}
> +
> +static int hellcreek_vlan_prepare(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> + const struct switchdev_obj_port_vlan *vlan)
> +{
> + struct hellcreek *hellcreek = ds->priv;
> +
> + /* Nothing todo */
> + dev_info(hellcreek->dev, "VLAN prepare for port %d\n", port);
dev_dbg()
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void hellcreek_vlan_add(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> + const struct switchdev_obj_port_vlan *vlan)
> +{
> + struct hellcreek *hellcreek = ds->priv;
> + bool untagged = vlan->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_UNTAGGED;
> + bool pvid = vlan->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + u16 vid;
> +
> + if (port >= NUM_PORTS || vlan->vid_end >= 4096)
Again, if vlan->vid_end >= 4096 is true, there is a core bug which
needs fixing.
> + return;
> +
> + dev_info(hellcreek->dev, "Add VLANs (%d -- %d) on port %d, %s, %s\n",
> + vlan->vid_begin, vlan->vid_end, port,
> + untagged ? "untagged" : "tagged",
> + pvid ? "PVID" : "no PVID");
Please go thought the driver and consider all you dev_info()
statements. Should they be dev_dbg()?
Andrew
