On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 04:44:48PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > What worries me is the situation which I've been working on, where > > we want access to the PCS PHYs, and we can't have the PCS PHYs > > represented as a phylib PHY because we may have a copper PHY behind > > the PCS PHY, and we want to be talking to the copper PHY in the > > first instance (the PCS PHY effectivel ybecomes a slave to the > > copper PHY.) > > I guess we need to clarify what KR actually means. If we have a > backplane with a MAC on each end, i think modelling it as a PHY could > work. > > If however, we have a MAC connected to a backplane, and on the end of > the backplane is a traditional PHY, or an SFP cage, we have problems. > As your point out, we cannot have two PHYs in a chain for one MAC. > > But i agree with Russell. We need a general solution of how we deal > with PCSs. What really worries me is that we may be driving the same hardware with two different approaches/drivers for two different applications which isn't going to work out very well in the long run. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 10.2Mbps down 587kbps up
