On 8/5/19 1:45 PM, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 04.08.2019 21:22, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 19:07, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04.08.2019 17:59, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 17:52, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>
>>> The patchset looks better now. But
On 04.08.2019 21:22, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 19:07, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>
>> On 04.08.2019 17:59, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 17:52, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> The patchset looks better now. But is it ok, I wonder, to keep
>> PHY_BCM_FLAGS_M
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 06:38:16AM +, Tao Ren wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 8/4/19 7:51 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >>> The patchset looks better now. But is it ok, I wonder, to keep
> >>> PHY_BCM_FLAGS_MODE_1000BX in phydev->dev_flags, considering that
> >>> phy_attach_direct is overwriting it?
> >
Hi Andrew,
On 8/4/19 7:51 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>> The patchset looks better now. But is it ok, I wonder, to keep
>>> PHY_BCM_FLAGS_MODE_1000BX in phydev->dev_flags, considering that
>>> phy_attach_direct is overwriting it?
>>
>
>> I checked ftgmac100 driver (used on my machine) and it calls
>>
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 19:07, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>
> On 04.08.2019 17:59, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 17:52, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >>
> The patchset looks better now. But is it ok, I wonder, to keep
> PHY_BCM_FLAGS_MODE_1000BX in phydev->dev_flags, considering tha
> > Even if that were the case (patching phy_attach_direct to apply a
> > logical-or to dev_flags), it sounds fishy to me that the genphy code
> > is unable to determine that this PHY is running in 1000Base-X mode.
> >
> > In my opinion it all boils down to this warning:
> >
> > "PHY advertising
On 04.08.2019 17:59, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 17:52, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>
The patchset looks better now. But is it ok, I wonder, to keep
PHY_BCM_FLAGS_MODE_1000BX in phydev->dev_flags, considering that
phy_attach_direct is overwriting it?
>>>
>>
>>> I checked
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 17:52, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>
> > > The patchset looks better now. But is it ok, I wonder, to keep
> > > PHY_BCM_FLAGS_MODE_1000BX in phydev->dev_flags, considering that
> > > phy_attach_direct is overwriting it?
> >
>
> > I checked ftgmac100 driver (used on my machine) and it
> > The patchset looks better now. But is it ok, I wonder, to keep
> > PHY_BCM_FLAGS_MODE_1000BX in phydev->dev_flags, considering that
> > phy_attach_direct is overwriting it?
>
> I checked ftgmac100 driver (used on my machine) and it calls
> phy_connect_direct which passes phydev->dev_flags whe
Hi Vladimir,
On 8/3/19 6:49 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Tao,
>
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 00:56, Tao Ren wrote:
>>
>> genphy_read_status() cannot report correct link speed when BCM54616S PHY
>> is configured in RGMII->1000Base-KX mode (for example, on Facebook CMM
>> BMC platform), and it is be
Hi Tao,
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 00:56, Tao Ren wrote:
>
> genphy_read_status() cannot report correct link speed when BCM54616S PHY
> is configured in RGMII->1000Base-KX mode (for example, on Facebook CMM
> BMC platform), and it is because speed-related fields in MII registers
> are assigned differe
genphy_read_status() cannot report correct link speed when BCM54616S PHY
is configured in RGMII->1000Base-KX mode (for example, on Facebook CMM
BMC platform), and it is because speed-related fields in MII registers
are assigned different meanings in 1000X register set. Actually there
is no speed fi
12 matches
Mail list logo
