Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 1 Dec 2022 16:19:34 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>
Cc:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, davem@davemloft.net,
        maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com, kuba@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
        vigneshr@ti.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 4/6] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: Add
 suspend/resume support
Message-ID: <Y4jGBtWurJ4tmHOc@lunn.ch>
References: <20221129133501.30659-1-rogerq@kernel.org>
 <20221129133501.30659-5-rogerq@kernel.org>
 <9fdc4e0eee7ead18c119b6bc3e93f7f73d2980cd.camel@redhat.com>
 <c41064a1-9da7-d848-6f9f-e1f3b722c063@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c41064a1-9da7-d848-6f9f-e1f3b722c063@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 01:44:28PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 01/12/2022 13:40, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-11-29 at 15:34 +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
> >> @@ -555,11 +556,26 @@ static int am65_cpsw_nuss_ndo_slave_open(struct net_device *ndev)
> >>  	struct am65_cpsw_common *common = am65_ndev_to_common(ndev);
> >>  	struct am65_cpsw_port *port = am65_ndev_to_port(ndev);
> >>  	int ret, i;
> >> +	u32 reg;
> >>  
> >>  	ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(common->dev);
> >>  	if (ret < 0)
> >>  		return ret;
> >>  
> >> +	/* Idle MAC port */
> >> +	cpsw_sl_ctl_set(port->slave.mac_sl, CPSW_SL_CTL_CMD_IDLE);
> >> +	cpsw_sl_wait_for_idle(port->slave.mac_sl, 100);
> >> +	cpsw_sl_ctl_reset(port->slave.mac_sl);
> >> +
> >> +	/* soft reset MAC */
> >> +	cpsw_sl_reg_write(port->slave.mac_sl, CPSW_SL_SOFT_RESET, 1);
> >> +	mdelay(1);
> >> +	reg = cpsw_sl_reg_read(port->slave.mac_sl, CPSW_SL_SOFT_RESET);
> >> +	if (reg) {
> >> +		dev_err(common->dev, "soft RESET didn't complete\n");
> > 
> > I *think* Andrew was asking for dev_dbg() here, but let's see what he
> > has to say :)
> 
> In the earlier revision we were not exiting with error, so dev_dbg()
> was more appropriate there.
> In this revision we error out so I thought dev_err() was ok.

Yes, i would agree. It is fatal, so dev_err() is appropriate.

What is not shown here is the return value. I think it is -EBUSY? I'm
wondering if -ETIMEDOUT is better?

	  Andrew