On Fri, 19 May 2023 15:16:57 +0200
Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/19/23 14:38, Marek Behún wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 May 2023 14:58:00 +0200
> > Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> + [MV88E6361] = {
> >>>>> + .prod_num = MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6361,
> >>>>> + .family = MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6393,
> >>>>> + .name = "Marvell 88E6361",
> >>>>> + .num_databases = 4096,
> >>>>> + .num_macs = 16384,
> >>>>> + .num_ports = 11,
> >>>>> + /* Ports 1, 2 and 8 are not routed */
> >>>>> + .invalid_port_mask = BIT(1) | BIT(2) | BIT(8),
> >>>>> + .num_internal_phys = 5,
> >>>>
> >>>> Which ports have internal PHYs? 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ? What does
> >>>> mv88e6xxx_phy_is_internal() return for these ports, and
> >>>> mv88e6xxx_get_capsmv88e6xxx_get_caps()? I'm wondering if you actually
> >>>> need to list 8 here?
> >>>
> >>> Indeed there is something wrong here too. I need to tune
> >>> mv88e6393x_phylink_get_caps to reflect 88E6361 differences.
> >>>
> >>> As stated above, port 3 to 7 are the ones with internal PHY.
> >>> For mv88e6xxx_phy_is_internal, I see that it is merely comparing the port index
> >>> to the number of internal phys, so in this case it would advertise (wrongly)
> >>> that ports 0 to 4 have internal phys.
> >>
> >> Ports 1 and 2 should hopefully be protected by the
> >> invalid_port_mask. It should not even be possible to create those
> >> ports. port 0 is interesting, and possibly currently broken on
> >> 6393. Please take a look at that.
> >
> > Why would port 0 be broken on 6393x ?
> By "broken", I guess Andrew means that if we feed port 0 to
> mv88e6xxx_phy_is_internal, it will return true, which is wrong since there is no
> internal phy for port 0 on 6393X ?
OK that's true :)
