On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:54:35PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 07:32:05PM +0000, Christian Herber wrote: > > On May 11, 2020 4:33:53 PM Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> wrote: > > > > > > Are the classes part of the Open Alliance specification? Ideally we > > > want to report something standardized, not something proprietary to > > > NXP. > > > > > > Andrew > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > Such mechanisms are standardized and supported by pretty much all > > devices in the market. The Open Alliance specification is publicly > > available here: > > http://www.opensig.org/download/document/218/Advanced_PHY_features_for_automotive_Ethernet_V1.0.pdf > > > > As the specification is newer than the 100BASE-T1 spec, do not > > expect first generation devices to follow the register definitions > > as per Open Alliance. But for future devices, also registers should > > be same across different vendors. > > Hi Christian > > Since we are talking about a kernel/user API definition here, i don't > care about the exact registers. What is important is the > naming/representation of the information. It seems like NXP uses Class > A - Class H, where as the standard calls them SQI=0 - SQI=7. So we > should name the KAPI based on the standard, not what NXP calls them.
OK, sounds good for me. Regards, Oleksij -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
