I somehow missed this mail..
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 10:12:36PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 08:58:07PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 03:33:55PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > However, this was about something else - Russell
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 12:30:11AM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 09:27:44PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > Now, instead of encoding this information of the bus' capabilities at both
> > > places, I'd propose just checking the mii_bus->capabilities field in the
> > >
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 09:27:44PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Now, instead of encoding this information of the bus' capabilities at both
> > places, I'd propose just checking the mii_bus->capabilities field in the
> > mdiobus_c45_*() functions. IMHO this would be a little cleaner, than having
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 08:58:07PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 03:33:55PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> However, this was about something else - Russell wrote:
> > > > We have established that MDIO drivers need to reject accesses for
> > > > reads/writes that they do not
> Now, instead of encoding this information of the bus' capabilities at both
> places, I'd propose just checking the mii_bus->capabilities field in the
> mdiobus_c45_*() functions. IMHO this would be a little cleaner, than having
> two
> places where this information is stored. What do you think
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 03:33:55PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 09:23:55PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > So currently every driver should check for the flag MII_ADDR_C45 and report
> > an
> > error in case it's unsupported.
> >
> > What do you think about checking the
On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 09:23:55PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 01:58:58PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 03:10:49AM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:48:58AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 01:58:58PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 03:10:49AM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:48:58AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> > wrote:
> > > One could also argue this is a feature, and it allows
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 02:28:54PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > Do you actually have a requirement for this?
> > >
> > Yes, the Marvell 88Q2112 1000Base-T1 PHY. But actually, I just recognize
> > that it
> > should be possible to just register it with the compatible string
> >
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 03:10:49AM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:48:58AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> wrote:
> > Do you actually have a requirement for this?
> >
> Yes, the Marvell 88Q2112 1000Base-T1 PHY. But actually, I just recognize that
> it
> should
> > Do you actually have a requirement for this?
> >
> Yes, the Marvell 88Q2112 1000Base-T1 PHY. But actually, I just recognize that
> it
> should be possible to just register it with the compatible string
> "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22" instead of "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c45", this
> should
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:48:58AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 03:23:05AM +0200, danilokrummr...@dk-develop.de wrote:
> > On 2021-03-31 20:35, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 07:58:33PM +0200,
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 03:23:05AM +0200, danilokrummr...@dk-develop.de wrote:
> On 2021-03-31 20:35, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 07:58:33PM +0200, danilokrummr...@dk-develop.de
> > wrote:
> > > For this cited change the only thing happening is that if
> > >
On 2021-03-31 20:35, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 07:58:33PM +0200, danilokrummr...@dk-develop.de
wrote:
For this cited change the only thing happening is that if
get_phy_device()
already failed for probing with is_c45==false (C22 devices) it tries
to
probe
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 07:58:33PM +0200, danilokrummr...@dk-develop.de wrote:
> For this cited change the only thing happening is that if get_phy_device()
> already failed for probing with is_c45==false (C22 devices) it tries to
> probe with is_c45==true (C45 devices) which then either results
Hi Andrew,
On 2021-03-31 18:27, Andrew Lunn wrote:
@@ -670,19 +670,21 @@ struct phy_device *mdiobus_scan(struct mii_bus
*bus, int addr)
struct phy_device *phydev = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
int err;
+ /* In case of NO_CAP and C22 only, we still can try to scan for C45
+ *
> @@ -670,19 +670,21 @@ struct phy_device *mdiobus_scan(struct mii_bus *bus,
> int addr)
> struct phy_device *phydev = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> int err;
>
> + /* In case of NO_CAP and C22 only, we still can try to scan for C45
> + * devices, since indirect access will be used
17 matches
Mail list logo
