> (Port0 and Port6). Could I just keep this or should I need to add a new > case ? The existing examples are probably sufficient. Just check the text to make sure it does not limit it to ports 0 and 6. > > So is this actually internally? Or do you have a IPQ50xx SoC connected > > to a qca8337 switch, with copper traces on a PCB? If so, it is not > > internal. > > The "internal" is used to describe the localcation of PHY not the link. > In current code, qca8k has supported to use a external PHY to do a > PHY-to-PHY link (Port0 and Port6). This patch make the internal PHYs > support it too (Port1-5). > > The followiing topology is existed in most IPQ50xx-based router: > _______________________ _______________________ > | IPQ5018 | | QCA8337 | > | +------+ +--------+ | | +--------+ +------+ | > | | MAC0 |---| GE Phy |-+--MDI--+-| Phy4 |---| MAC5 | | > | +------+ +--------+ | | +--------+ +------+ | > | +------+ +--------+ | | +--------+ +------+ | > | | MAC1 |---| Uniphy |-+-SGMII-+-| SerDes |---| MAC0 | | > | +------+ +--------+ | | +--------+ +------+ | > |_______________________| |_______________________| So logically, it does not matter if the PHY is internal or external. The patch would be the same. I've even see setups where the SGMII link would have a PHY, then a connection to a daughter board, and then a PHY back to SGMII before connecting to the switch. Running Ethernet over the connector is easier than SERDES lines. So i would probably drop the word internal from this discussion, unless it is really relevant. Andrew
