Skip to contentSkip to conversation

net: fec: Add "phy-reset-active-low" property to DT

PATCH Troy Kisky 3 participants 3 messages Mar 1, 2016 – Mar 2, 2016

Subsystems (3)
lore
Share & tools
lore

Troy Kisky

author
#0 lore raw

We need that for a custom hardware that needs the reverse reset sequence.

---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl-fec.txt | 3 +++
 drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c         | 8 ++++++--
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
(quoted diff) +0 -0

b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl-fec.txt index a9eb611..a4799ff 100644

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl-fec.txt +3 -0
@@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ Optional properties:
   only if property "phy-reset-gpios" is available.  Missing the property
   will have the duration be 1 millisecond.  Numbers greater than 1000 are
   invalid and 1 millisecond will be used instead.
+- phy-reset-active-low : If present then the reset sequence using the GPIO
+  specified in the "phy-reset-gpios" property is reversed (H=reset state,
+  L=operation state).

____________________________

Shouldn't this be named phy-reset-active-high, as you are making the reset active high H=reset, L= normal operation

Troy

#1 lore raw

Hi,

sorry for my late reply.

Quoted 9 lines · Troy Kisky

invalid and 1 millisecond will be used instead.
+- phy-reset-active-low : If present then the reset sequence using the GPIO

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl-fec.txt +2 -0
+  specified in the "phy-reset-gpios" property is reversed (H=reset state,
+  L=operation state).

____________________________

Shouldn't this be named phy-reset-active-high, as you are making the reset active high H=reset, L= normal operation

Indeed, you're correct.

Should I send a new patch or a patch that corrects my first patch? Because it already is in linux-next.

Regards,
Bernhard

#2 lore raw
Quoted 4 lines · Bernhard Walle

Indeed, you're correct.

Should I send a new patch or a patch that corrects my first patch? Because it already is in linux-next.

As your patch is already in linux-next you should send an incremental patch then. Thanks