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:   Fri, 26 May 2023 09:14:26 +0200
From:   =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ram=F3n?= Nordin Rodriguez 
        <ramon.nordin.rodriguez@ferroamp.se>
To:     Parthiban.Veerasooran@microchip.com
Cc:     andrew@lunn.ch, hkallweit1@gmail.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk,
        davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
        pabeni@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Horatiu.Vultur@microchip.com,
        Woojung.Huh@microchip.com, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com,
        Thorsten.Kummermehr@microchip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/6] net: phy: microchip_t1s: fix reset
 complete status handling
Message-ID: <ZHBcUvSbX0taOED3@debian>
References: <20230524144539.62618-1-Parthiban.Veerasooran@microchip.com>
 <20230524144539.62618-5-Parthiban.Veerasooran@microchip.com>
 <ZG+oOVWuKnwE0IB2@builder>
 <8a46450d-7c6e-68a4-c09d-3b195a935907@microchip.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8a46450d-7c6e-68a4-c09d-3b195a935907@microchip.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 06:00:08AM +0000, Parthiban.Veerasooran@microchip.com wrote:
> Hi Ramon,
> >> +     /* Read STS2 register and check for the Reset Complete status to do the
> >> +      * init configuration. If the Reset Complete is not set, wait for 5us
> >> +      * and then read STS2 register again and check for Reset Complete status.
> >> +      * Still if it is failed then declare PHY reset error or else proceed
> >> +      * for the PHY initial register configuration.
> >> +      */
> > 
> > This comment explains exactly what the code does, which is also obvious
> > from reading the code. A meaningful comment would be explaining why the
> > state can change 5us later.
> > 
> As per design, LAN867x reset to be completed by 3us. Just for a safer 
> side it is recommended to use 5us. With the assumption of more than 3us 
> completion, the first read checks for the Reset Complete. If the 
> config_init is more faster, then once again checks for it after 5us.
> 
> As you mentioned, can we remove the existing block comment as it 
> explains the code and add the above comment to explain 5us delay.
> What is your opinion on this proposal?
> 
> Best Regards,
> Parthiban V
> 

I'd suggest the following
/*The chip completes a reset in 3us, we might get here earlier than that,
as an added margin we'll conditionally sleep 5us*/