On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:48:17AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 03:59:30PM +0530, Calvin Johnson wrote: > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:38:49AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 01:30:40PM +0530, Calvin Johnson wrote: > > > > On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 01:42:57AM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 05:48:33PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/8/20 3:27 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > > > > > > There is a very small number of devices where the vendor messed up, > > > > > > > > > and did not put valid contents in the ID registers. In such cases, we > > > > > > > > > can read the IDs from device tree. These are then used in exactly the > > > > > > > > > same way as if they were read from the device. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that the case here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I don't understand the question? > > > > > > > > > > > > I was asking in general, does this machine report the ID's correctly. > > > > > > > > > > Very likely, it does. > > > > > > > > > > > The embedded single mac:mdio per nic case seems like the normal case, and > > > > > > most of the existing ACPI described devices are setup that way. > > > > > > > > > > Somebody in this thread pointed to ACPI patches for the > > > > > MACCHIATOBin. If i remember the hardware correctly, it has 4 Ethernet > > > > > interfaces, and two MDIO bus masters. One of the bus masters can only > > > > > do C22 and the other can only do C45. It is expected that the busses > > > > > are shared, not a nice one to one mapping. > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time, that shifts the c22/45 question to the nic > > > > > > driver, where use of a DSD property before instantiating/probing > > > > > > MDIO isn't really a problem if needed. > > > > > > > > > > This in fact does not help you. The MAC driver has no idea what PHY is > > > > > connected to it. The MAC does not know if it is C22 or C45. It uses > > > > > the phylib abstraction which hides all this. Even if you assume 1:1, > > > > > use phy_find_first(), it will not find a C45 PHY because without > > > > > knowing there is a C45 PHY, we don't scan for it. And we should expect > > > > > C45 PHYs to become more popular in the next few years. > > > > > > > > Agree. > > > > > > > > NXP's LX2160ARDB platform currently has the following MDIO-PHY connection. > > > > > > > > MDIO-1 ==> one 40G PHY, two 1G PHYs(C45), two 10G PHYs(C22) > > > > > > I'm not entirely sure you have that correct. The Clause 45 register set > > > as defined by IEEE 802.3 does not define registers for 1G negotiation, > > > unless the PHY either supports Clause 22 accesses, or implements some > > > kind of vendor extension. For a 1G PHY, this would be wasteful, and > > > likely incompatible with a lot of hardware/software. > > > > > > Conversely, Clause 22 does not define registers for 10G speeds, except > > > accessing Clause 45 registers indirectly through clause 22 registers, > > > which would also be wasteful. > > > > > Got your point. > > Let me try to clarify. > > > > MDIO-1 ==> one 40G PHY, two 1G PHYs(C45), two 10G PHYs(C22) > > MDIO-2 ==> one 25G PHY > > This is the physical connection of MDIO & PHYs on the platform. > > > > For the c45 PHYs(two 10G), we use compatible "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c45"(not > > yet upstreamed). > > For c22 PHYs(two 1G), we don't mention the c45 compatible string and hence the > > access also will be using c22, if I'm not wrong. > > You seem to have just repeated the same mistake (it seems to be a direct > copy-n-paste of what you sent in the email I replied to) - and then gone > on to say something different. Either you're confused or you're not > writing in your email what you intend to. > > You first say "MDIO-1 ==> two 1G PHYs(C45)". You then say lower down > "For C22 PHYs (two 1G)". Both these statements can't be true. > > Similarly, you first say "MDIO-1 ==> two 10G PHYs(C22)". You then say > lower down "For the c45 PHYs(two 10G)". Again, both these statements > can't be true. > > Given that this discussion in this thread has been about C22 vs C45, I > would have thought accuracy in regard to this point would have been of > the up-most importance. > It was my mistake. Sorry about that. 1G PHYs are C22 and 10G PHYs are C45. I didn't notice the mistake, hence copied. Correcting: MDIO-1 ==> one 40G PHY, two 1G PHYs(C22), two 10G PHYs(C45) Thanks Calvin
