On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 08:38:51PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> seems like a delayed workqueue would be most appropriate for this.
I like the fact that the use of kthread shows the user how much
cpu time is being used by the execution of monitoring the phy. How
badly do people object to using a kth
seems like a delayed workqueue would be most appropriate for this.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:46:27AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > +static void dm9000_start_thread(struct net_device *dev)
> > +{
> > + board_info_t *db = (board_info_t *) dev->priv;
> > +
> > + /* Create a thread to keep track of the state of the phy
> > +* as we do not get an interru
> +static void dm9000_start_thread(struct net_device *dev)
> +{
> + board_info_t *db = (board_info_t *) dev->priv;
> +
> + /* Create a thread to keep track of the state of the phy
> + * as we do not get an interrupt when the PHY state changes.
> + *
> + * Note, we do not abor
When the device is open, we have to probe the PHY's MII status
periodically as there is no status change interrupt. As the
phy code is going to change to using calls which might sleep
we move to using a kthread instead of a timer.
Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6.23-
