Felix Radensky wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks, David and Armin for your help. I've tried the methods you suggested > but none of them worked. The real problem in my case was the MAX_NUM_PHYS > constant. I've noticed that after the first for loop in find_phy routine, the > value of > i is MAX_NUM_PHYS. So I've tried to increase the value of this constant, and > my > phy was (almost) discovered properly after the 5th iteration. I say almost, > because > I also had to change the value of phy id from 0x20005c23 to 0x20005c20 (the > value > reported by find_phy. Armin, can you please explain how this number was > determined.
Felix, I took the easy route, its just phyid1 & phyid2. The "A" version was submitted by some one else and it might be possible to combine them into one DP83843 stuct by using a shift factor of 8 ( 2nd eliment in the phy_info struct" the diff between 0x20005c23 & 0x20005c20 is the model revision number. Maybe MAX_NUM_PHYS needs to be renamed to MAX_PHY_ADDR to be more clear. -- armin ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
