On Monday 12 April 2021 16:30:03 Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > +/* This table contains representative model for every family */ > > > > +static const enum mv88e6xxx_model family_model_table[] = { > > > > + [MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6095] = MV88E6095, > > > > + [MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6097] = MV88E6097, > > > > + [MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6185] = MV88E6185, > > > > + [MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6250] = MV88E6250, > > > > + [MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6320] = MV88E6320, > > > > + [MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6341] = MV88E6341, > > > > + [MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6351] = MV88E6351, > > > > + [MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6352] = MV88E6352, > > > > + [MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6390] = MV88E6390, > > > > +}; > > > > > > This table is wrong. MV88E6390 does not equal > > > MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6390. MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6390 > > > was chosen because it is already an MDIO device ID, in register 2 and > > > 3. It probably will never clash with a real Marvell PHY ID. MV88E6390 > > > is just a small integer, and there is a danger it will clash with a > > > real PHY. > > > > So... how to solve this issue? What should be in the mapping table? > > You need to use MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6095, > MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6097, > ... > MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6390,
But I'm using it. First chip->info->family (enum mv88e6xxx_family; MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6341) is mapped to enum mv88e6xxx_model (MV88E6341) via family_model_table[] and then enum mv88e6xxx_model (MV88E6341) is mapped to prod_num (MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6341) via mv88e6xxx_table[]. All this is done in mv88e6xxx_physid_for_family() function. So at the end, this function converts MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6341 to MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6341. And therefore I do not see anything wrong in family_model_table[] table. I defined family_model_table[] table to just maps enum mv88e6xxx_family to enum mv88e6xxx_model as mv88e6xxx_table[] table already contains mapping from enum mv88e6xxx_model to phys_id, to simplify implementation.