On Monday 12 April 2021 18:12:35 Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 05:52:39PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Monday 12 April 2021 17:32:33 Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > Anyway, now I'm looking at phy/marvell.c driver again and it supports > > > > only 88E6341 and 88E6390 families from whole 88E63xxx range. > > > > > > > > So do we need to define for now table for more than > > > > MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6341 and MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6390 entries? > > > > > > Probably not. I've no idea if the 6393 has an ID, so to be safe you > > > should add that. Assuming it has a family of its own. > > > > So what about just? > > > > if (reg == MII_PHYSID2 && !(val & 0x3f0)) { > > if (chip->info->family == MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6341) > > val |= MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6341 >> 4; > > else if (chip->info->family == MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6390) > > val |= MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6390 >> 4; > > } > > As i said, i expect the 6393 also has no ID. And i recently found out > Marvell have some automotive switches, 88Q5xxx which are actually > based around the same IP and could be added to this driver. They also > might not have an ID. I suspect this list is going to get longer, so > having it table driven will make that simpler, less error prone. > > Andrew
Ok, I will use table but I fill it only with Topaz (6341) and Peridot (6390) which was there before as I do not have 6393 switch for testing. If you or anybody else has 6393 unit for testing, please extend then table.