> > > So i think it would be better to have
> > >
> > > enum {
> > > MDIOBUS_UNKNOWN = 0,
> > > MDIOBUS_C22,
> > > MDIOBUS_C45,
> > > MDIOBUS_C45_C22,
> > > } bus_capabilities;
> > >
> > > Describe just what the bus master can support.
> >
> > Yes, the naming is reasonable and I will update it in the next patch. I went
> > around a bit myself with this naming early on, and the problem I saw was
> > that a C45 capable master, can have C45 electrical phy's that only respond
> > to c22 requests (AFAIK).
>
> If you have a master that can only generate clause 45 cycles, and
> someone is daft enough to connect a clause 22 only PHY to it, the
> result is hardware that doesn't work - there's no getting around
> that. The MDIO interface can't generate the appropriate cycles to
> access the clause 22 PHY. So, this is not something we need care
> about.
>
> > So the MDIOBUS_C45 (I think I was calling it
> > C45_ONLY) is an invalid selection. Not, that it wouldn't be helpful to have
> > a C45_ONLY case, but that the assumption is that you wouldn't try and probe
> > c22 registers, which I thought was a mistake.
>
> MDIOBUS_C45 means "I can generate clause 45 cycles".
> MDIOBUS_C22 means "I can generate clause 22 cycles".
> MDIOBUS_C45_C22 means "I can generate both clause 45 and clause 22
> cycles."
>
> Notice carefully the values these end up with - MDIOBUS_C22 = BIT(0),
> MDIOBUS_C45 = BIT(1), MDIOBUS_C45_C22 = BIT(0) | BIT(1). I suspect
> that was no coincidence in Andrew's suggestion.
Hi Russell
What was a nice side affect. Since i doubt Jeremy is going to go
through every MDIO driver and set the capabilities correctly, i wanted
0 to have a safe meaning. In the code we should treat MDIOBUS_UNKNOWN
and MDIOBUS_C22 identically. But maybe some time in the distant
future, we can make 0 issue a warning.
Andrew
