On 01/22/2018 12:54 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> Note: there is still technically a misreprentation of how the PHY is >> "attached" to the network device. In your DTSes, you have to have the >> CPU port have a "phy-handle" to the internal PHY, while technically it >> should be the i210 which has a "phy-handle" property to that PHY, and >> even better, if the e1000e/idb drivers were PHYLIB capable, they could >> manage it directly. > > Hi Florian > > Err, i don't think i agree. But maybe i'm missunderstanding. > > We have two back-to-back PHYs. I would expect the i210 MAC to have a > phy-handle pointing it its PHY. The CPU port would then point to the > internal switch PHY. Is it really a back-to-back PHY? If that is the case, ok, that can indeed work without magnetics, but this is really an inefficient way to connect a MAC to a switch, especially when you can do direct (R)GMII without any PHY in between... If that is the case, then disregard my comment. > > Or are you suggesting the i210 has two phy-handles, its own and the > switches? Not suggesting that, that would be weird. > > Andrew > -- Florian -- 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
