在 2025/3/4 22:11, Andrew Lunn 写道:
(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
Ok, will remove the word in next patch
