On 12/23/18 11:56 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:43:05AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 12/23/18 11:23 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>>>> +static int smsc95xx_phy_address(struct usbnet *dev) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + u32 read_buf; >>>>> + int ret, id1, id2, phyad; >>>>> + >>>>> + ret = smsc95xx_read_reg(dev, HW_CFG, &read_buf); >>>>> + if (ret < 0) >>>>> + return ret; >>>>> + >>>>> + /* Check if using external PHY, if not, use internal PHY address */ >>>>> + if (!(read_buf & HW_CFG_PSEL_)) >>>>> + return SMSC95XX_INTERNAL_PHY_ID; >>>>> + >>>>> + /* >>>>> + * Detect external PHY address. Here we probe the MDIO bus from >>>>> + * the highest address, since some PHYs respond also on address >>>>> + * zero, which they consider MDIO broadcast address. We really >>>>> + * want to get their proper address instead though, so we scan >>>>> + * address zero last. >>>>> + */ >>>>> + for (phyad = 0x1f; phyad >= 0; phyad--) { >>>>> + id1 = smsc95xx_mdio_read(dev->net, phyad, MII_PHYSID1); >>>>> + id2 = smsc95xx_mdio_read(dev->net, phyad, MII_PHYSID2); >>>>> + /* Check for valid response from the PHY */ >>>>> + if (id1 > 0 && id2 > 0 && id1 != 0x7fff && id2 != 0xffff) >>>>> + return phyad; >>>>> + } >>> >>> This would be so much easier if the driver used the core mdio/phy >>> code. Just set mdio->phy_mask to ~BIT(0) and then use >>> phy_find_first(). >> >> That's in the pipeline, along with PM cleanups, but low prio. > > Great. Does using the broadcast address actually cause a problem? If > not, i would say lets drop this part of the patch until you do the > cleanup. Yeah, at least the TJA11xx doesn't respond on 0x0, so I wouldn't depend on the broadcast address. In my case, the PHY just sits at 0x4. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut