On 10/16/23 08:45, Andrew Lunn wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 05:36:24PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:On 2023-10-14 18:50, Andrew Lunn wrote:On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 12:33:14PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> While switch ports 5 and 7 are disabled (vendor designed port 8 to be used for CPU traffic) they could be used strictly technically. For some reason however both those ports need forcing link to be usable.This explanation is not making much sense to me. I assume this board does not have an RJ45 for these two ports? But does it have a header so you can access the MII interface?This PATCH as it is requires a basic familiarity with Northstar platform or checking bcm-ns.dtsi. All Northstar (BCM5301X) devices have 3 Ethernet interfaces. 99% of them have: 1. gmac0 connected to port 5 2. gmac1 connected to port 7 3. gmac2 connected to port 8 (it's described in bcm-ns.dtsi). Some vendors decide to use gmac0 and switch port 5. They fill NVRAM with MAC for gmac0. Some vendors decide to use gmac2 & port 8. They set MAC for gmac2. Netgear decided to use gmac2 & port 8 for R8000. They fill NVRAM with MAC for gmac2. If you however insist on using gmac0 you could do that. That just requires setting up gmac0 with a custom/random MAC and forcing link for switch ports as described in this PATCH.If the ports are not used, you have them set to disabled, why do they need a fixed-link? That is what i don't understand yet.
It seems to me like the commit message could be reworded such that:Even though ports 5 and 7 are disabled and the system is intended to use port 8, make it possible for users to experiment with using ports 5 and/or 7 if they desire so by ensuring that they have the necessary 'fixed-link' properties to describe the internal connection within the SoC between the switch ports and the two Ethernet controllers.
Rafal, does that capture the intent? If so I can amend the commit message while applying.
-- Florian
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
