Given that this problem is causing bricked (well, only serial console
access) devices on fresh install on newest TL-WR703N v 1.7 routers, is
it advisable to backport the patch to the AA branch?
-Michel
Le 07/01/2013 15:33, Gabor Juhos a écrit :
2013.01.06. 23:10 keltezéssel, Michel Stempin írta:
<...>
But it looks like the default for id 0 in ath79_register_eth(id) is to set bit
4 in mask, which is wrong if we swap PHY 0 and 4, is it?
Erm, the 'false, false' in the phy4_switch call above ensures that we don't swap
the phy address. It was 'false, true' in the original patch.
Oh, yes, so BIT(0) is only required if 'false, true' is used, all right!
Yes.
<...>
First of all, the built-in switch has no MAC5 interface, the datasheet is simply
wrong about that IMHO.
An MII (or GMII) interface connects a MAC to a PHY or a MAC to a MAC in
Reversed MII configuration, so actually, I think there is a MAC indeed on the
CPU side of GE0, which I guess they called MAC5, and I bet for MAC6 for the one
on the CPU side of GE1... But I agree that the datasheet is not clear about it,
and it is not mentioned anywhere else.
The SoC has two ethernet MACs which are GE0 and GE1 (aka. GMAC0 and GMAC1), and
the built-in switch has five MACs.
<...>
The original patch clears the PHY_SWAP bit and sets the PHY_ADDR_SWAP bit. So
MAC1 of the siwtch will be connected to PHY0 and GE0 will be connected to PHY4.
Because the PHY_ADDR_SWAP bit is still set, the PHY4 of the switch uses phy
address 0 and that is the reason why you had to change the default phy_mask as
well. The connection type of GE0 and GE1 interfaces are not changed by the
patch.
So basically if I understand you correctly, both configs with:
- PHY_SWAP=false, PHY_ADDR_SWAP=true, phy_mask=BIT(0) on one hand and
- PHY_SWAP=false, PHY_ADDR_SWAP=false, phy_mask=BIT(4) (default) on the other
hand
are equivalent?
Yes. At least on devices which has only one ethernet port connected to GE0.
Then what do you suggest:
- apply the more complex TL-MR3020/TL-MR3040/TL-MR11U existing patch to
TL-WR703N for consistency as I originally proposed
- apply your simpler solution to all
- or just apply your solution to TL-WR703N only and not being consistent with
others?
I have applied the simpler solution to all boards.
Anyway, thank you for these explanations!
You are welcome!
-Gabor
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
