> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:u-boot- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Andy Fleming > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 4:24 AM > To: Mike Frysinger > Cc: [email protected] List; Andy Fleming; Kumar Gala > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mii: miiphy register address width change > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thursday 20 October 2011 17:45:33 Andy Fleming wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > On Thursday 20 October 2011 09:55:34 Kumar Gala wrote: > >> >> On Oct 20, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> >> > On Thursday 20 October 2011 06:34:33 Kumar Nath, Chandan wrote: > >> >> >> This patch was acked on September 21, but in latest code base > I could > >> >> >> not find this patch. Is there anything left which I need to > take care > >> >> >> in my patch. If so, please let me know so that this can be > picked up. > >> >> > > >> >> > i don't merge net patches. wolfgang does. i don't think > there's > >> >> > anything left for you to do. > >> >> > >> >> I think this breaks 10g support. I'm pretty sure Andy made the > data > >> >> type a short for a reason. > >> > > >> > the data type in mainline is 8bits (char). Chandan is fixing it > to be > >> > 16bits (short). if 10g breaks with a short, that sounds like a > bug in > >> > the 10g code we should figure out + fix. Linux is using a short > just > >> > fine afaict. > >> > >> Actually, there's some confusion, here. The function being updated > by > >> this patch isn't part of phylib. It's part of the legacy miiphy > code. > >> I don't think there's any reason to update it. If you are writing a > >> new driver with 10G support (which would, admittedly, require a 16- > bit > >> register argument), then don't use miiphy_register. Call > >> mdio_register, and register proper phylib support. The mii command > >> isn't capable of dealing with Clause-45 MDIO transactions, anyway > (no > >> devad) > > > > so the patch is correct, but we don't want to merge it because we > don't want > > to encourage the old miiphy interface ? and leaving it broken forces > people > > to migrate to the new phy layer ? > > I don't think the patch is correct or incorrect. It attempts to update > the miiphy_* API to support larger register offsets. I'm suggesting > that we shouldn't change the legacy API to support new features. > There's no way to specify via miiphy_write that you want to write to a > register with a 16-bit register offset, because there's no way to > specify which device to write. > > So I'm not saying we shouldn't apply this patch. I'm questioning why > it was written in a hope that we can discourage new use of the old > API. I'm also not convinced the patch helps anything. > > Andy
This patch was written to support PHY register whose address width is greater than 8 bit. It was not written for 10 gig support. - Chandan > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
