Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:12:04 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Esben Haabendal <esben@geanix.com>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>,
        Yang Wei <yang.wei9@zte.com.cn>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] net: ll_temac: Support indirect_mutex share within
 TEMAC IP
Message-ID: <20190429221204.GN12333@lunn.ch>
References: <20190426073231.4008-1-esben@geanix.com>
 <20190429083422.4356-1-esben@geanix.com>
 <20190429083422.4356-8-esben@geanix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190429083422.4356-8-esben@geanix.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> For OF devices, the xlnx,compound parent of the temac node should be
> used to find siblings, and setup a shared indirect_mutex between them.
> I will leave this work to somebody else, as I don't have hardware to
> test that.  No regression is introduced by that, as before this commit
> using two Ethernet interfaces in same TEMAC block is simply broken.

Is that true?

> @@ -1092,7 +1092,16 @@ static int temac_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	lp->dev = &pdev->dev;
>  	lp->options = XTE_OPTION_DEFAULTS;
>  	spin_lock_init(&lp->rx_lock);
> -	mutex_init(&lp->indirect_mutex);
> +
> +	/* Setup mutex for synchronization of indirect register access */
> +	if (pdata) {
> +		if (!pdata->indirect_mutex) {
> +			dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> +				"indirect_mutex missing in platform_data\n");
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		}
> +		lp->indirect_mutex = pdata->indirect_mutex;
> +	}

In the OF case, isn't lp->indirect_mutex now a NULL pointer, where as
before it was a valid mutex?

Or did i miss something somewhere?

   Andrew