Hi Thomas Hi Hauke On 04/06/2016 16:43, Langer, Thomas wrote: >> + /* there is an errata regarding irqs in this rev */ > And then this is comment is also now valid. > What about a system with a single external phy connected, > on a non-Lantiq/Intel SoC? > > I think the feasibility of using interrupts is not related to the phy version, > but indirectly by the version of the SoC it is integrated. > > So maybe he use of interrupts (on these SoCs) should be controlled by devicetree or > network driver, where the SoC type and version can be handled? > IIRC the 2 irq lines are broken on xrx200 v1.1 SoC silicon. irqs were unreliable and sometimes fired on the wrong phy or not at all. maybe this was fixed on v1.2 silicon ? this is not related to the phy per-se but the SoC silicon it is integrated into. the PHY driver should be agnostic of the SoC having a functional IRQ block i think. devictrees for v1.1 SoC silicon should simply not define an IRQ inside the devicetree and rely on the phy polling done by the mdio/phy layer. John -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
