On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 01:52:42PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 08/27/2018 01:35 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >> @@ -210,6 +228,17 @@
> >> reg = <4>;
> >> };
> >>
> >> + port@5 {
> >> + label = "sfp";
> >> + phy-mode = "sgmii";
> >> + reg = <5>;
> >> + sfp = <&sfp>;
> >> + fixed-link {
> >> + speed = <1000>;
> >> + full-duplex;
> >> + };
> >
> > Hi Florian
> >
> > You might want to add a comment about why you are using fixed-link and
> > sgmii, which seems very odd. Is it even correct?
>
> Probably not, this is kind of left over from before adding the sfp
> phandle, but if I do remove it, and I can see the DSA slave network
> device fail to initialize, likely because we destroy the PHYLINK instance.
>
> AFAIR, when we talked about this with Russell, I did not see why we had
> to comment out the following:
>
> diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
> index 962c4fd338ba..f3ae16dbf8d8 100644
> --- a/net/dsa/slave.c
> +++ b/net/dsa/slave.c
> @@ -1227,7 +1227,7 @@ static int dsa_slave_phy_setup(struct net_device
> *slave_dev)
> netdev_err(slave_dev,
> "failed to connect to port %d: %d\n",
> dp->index, ret);
> - phylink_destroy(dp->pl);
> + //phylink_destroy(dp->pl);
> return ret;
> }
> }
>
> maybe you know?
Hi Florian
I didn't need anything like this for the mv88e6xxx. I had patches
merged in -rc1 to make SFF work connected to the mv88e6390. The DT
change was not merged, but it is here:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/955635/
+ port@9 {
+ reg = <9>;
+ label = "sff2";
+ phy-mode = "sgmii";
+ managed = "in-band-status";
+ sfp = <&sff2>;
+ };
Andrew
