RFC: PHY Abstraction Layer II

[Kumar Gala]

Jeff,

Where do we stand on this.  Are there changes you feel need to be made? 
  Some other issue?  It would like to know what we need to do to get 
this in post 2.6.12.

thanks

- kumar

On May 10, 2005, at 12:04 PM, Fleming Andy-afleming wrote:

>
>
> On Apr 17, 2005, at 08:00, James Chapman wrote:
>
> > Andy Fleming wrote:
> >> Ok, here's the new patch with changes suggested by James Chapman:
>  >
>  > I guess I still have questions about the way interrupts are used.
>  >
>  > Using an interrupt to schedule a work queue which then sets a 
> variable
> > that is used by a timer seems odd. Why not do all the work in the 
> work
>  > queue and schedule it from the interrupt handler or timer?
>
> Ok, I've set up a new system for handling interrupts.  There are now
>  two "special" interrupt values, PHY_POLL, and PHY_IGNORE_INTERRUPT. 
>  The first one is used to indicate that the PHY layer will poll the PHY
> for state changes, and won't enable interrupts.  The second indicates
> that the PHY layer will neither poll, nor enable interrupts, and thus
> will allow the driver to handle interrupts.  The PHY layer will still
> operate its state machine, though.
>
> The driver must insure a couple things:
>
> 1) It must set phydev->state to PHY_CHANGELINK
> 2) It must do that in a work queue (or other non-interrupt time)
>
> The first one tells the PHY layer that the link state changed (it has
> to grab a lock to do this).  The second one is required in order to
> properly take the lock.
>
> >
>  > Also, did you mean to leave the #if 0 code in davicom.c?
>
> For now.  It worked around a problem some people were reporting, so I'd
> like to see if they report it again now that the code's out.  If so,
> they have a fairly easy fix, and I can reinsert it (or at least
> reevaluate it) in the future.
>
> >
>  > /james
>
> Andy
> <phy_05_09_2005.patch><ATT191442.txt>