> nxp-c45-tja11xx is acceptable from my point of view.
Great. Enough bike shedding, nxp-c45-tja11xx it is.
Andrew
On 4/13/2021 3:57 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
Ok, we can agree that there will not be a perfect naming. Would it be a
possibility to rename the existing TJA11xx driver to TJA1100-1-2 or is that
unwanted?
It is generally a bad idea. It makes back porting fixing harder if the
file changes name.
If n
> Ok, we can agree that there will not be a perfect naming. Would it be a
> possibility to rename the existing TJA11xx driver to TJA1100-1-2 or is that
> unwanted?
It is generally a bad idea. It makes back porting fixing harder if the
file changes name.
> If nxp-c45.c is to generic (I take from y
On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 10:50 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 09:41:06PM +0300, Radu Pirea (NXP OSS) wrote:
> > +#define B100T1_PMAPMD_CTL 0x0834
> > +#define B100T1_PMAPMD_CONFIG_ENBIT(15)
> > +#define B100T1_PMAPMD_MASTER
On 4/13/2021 3:30 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 08:56:30AM +0200, Christian Herber wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 4/12/2021 6:52 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
So what you are say is, you don't care if the IP is completely
different, it all goes in one driver. So lets put this driver into
n
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 08:56:30AM +0200, Christian Herber wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 4/12/2021 6:52 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >
> > So what you are say is, you don't care if the IP is completely
> > different, it all goes in one driver. So lets put this driver into
> > nxp-tja11xx.c. And then we
Hi Andrew,
On 4/12/2021 6:52 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
So what you are say is, you don't care if the IP is completely
different, it all goes in one driver. So lets put this driver into
nxp-tja11xx.c. And then we avoid all the naming issues.
Andrew
As this seems to be a key question, let
> +static const struct nxp_c45_phy_stats nxp_c45_hw_stats[] = {
> + { "phy_symbol_error_cnt", MDIO_MMD_VEND1, SYMBOL_ERROR_COUNTER, 0,
> GENMASK(15, 0) },
> + { "phy_link_status_drop_cnt", MDIO_MMD_VEND1, LINK_DROP_COUNTER, 8,
> GENMASK(13, 8) },
> + { "phy_link_availability_drop_cnt"
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 05:49:04PM +0300, Radu Nicolae Pirea (NXP OSS) wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 16:23 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > It is purely a C45 device.
> >
> > > Even if the PHY will be based on the same IP or not, if it is a C45
> > > PHY, it will be supported by this driver. We ar
On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 16:23 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > It is purely a C45 device.
>
> > Even if the PHY will be based on the same IP or not, if it is a C45
> > PHY, it will be supported by this driver. We are not talking about
> > 2 or
> > 3 PHYs. This driver will support all future C45 PHYs. T
> It is purely a C45 device.
> Even if the PHY will be based on the same IP or not, if it is a C45
> PHY, it will be supported by this driver. We are not talking about 2 or
> 3 PHYs. This driver will support all future C45 PHYs. That's why we
> named it "NXP C45".
So if in future you produce C45
On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 14:57 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 01:02:07PM +0300, Radu Nicolae Pirea (NXP
> OSS) wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 21:36 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 09:41:06PM +0300, Radu Pirea (NXP OSS)
> > > wrote:
> > > > Add driver for
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 01:02:07PM +0300, Radu Nicolae Pirea (NXP OSS) wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 21:36 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 09:41:06PM +0300, Radu Pirea (NXP OSS) wrote:
> > > Add driver for tja1103 driver and for future NXP C45 PHYs.
> >
> > So apart from c45
On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 21:36 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 09:41:06PM +0300, Radu Pirea (NXP OSS) wrote:
> > Add driver for tja1103 driver and for future NXP C45 PHYs.
>
> So apart from c45 vs c22, how does this differ to nxp-tja11xx.c?
> Do we really want two different driver
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 09:41:06PM +0300, Radu Pirea (NXP OSS) wrote:
> +#define B100T1_PMAPMD_CTL0x0834
> +#define B100T1_PMAPMD_CONFIG_EN BIT(15)
> +#define B100T1_PMAPMD_MASTER BIT(14)
> +#define MASTER_MODE (B100T1_PMAPMD_CONFIG_EN |
> B100T1_P
On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 21:18 +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 09.04.2021 20:41, Radu Pirea (NXP OSS) wrote:
> > Add driver for tja1103 driver and for future NXP C45 PHYs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Radu Pirea (NXP OSS)
> >
> > ---
> > MAINTAINERS | 6 +
> > drivers/net/phy/Kconfig
Hi "Radu,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on linus/master]
[also build test ERROR on v5.12-rc6 next-20210409]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
ht
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 09:41:06PM +0300, Radu Pirea (NXP OSS) wrote:
> Add driver for tja1103 driver and for future NXP C45 PHYs.
So apart from c45 vs c22, how does this differ to nxp-tja11xx.c?
Do we really want two different drivers for the same hardware?
Can we combine them somehow?
> +conf
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 21:41:06 +0300 Radu Pirea (NXP OSS) wrote:
> Add driver for tja1103 driver and for future NXP C45 PHYs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Radu Pirea (NXP OSS)
drivers/net/phy/nxp-c45: struct mdio_device_id is 8 bytes. The last of 1 is:
0x10 0xb0 0x1b 0x00 0xf0 0xff 0xff 0xff
FATAL: modpos
On 09.04.2021 20:41, Radu Pirea (NXP OSS) wrote:
> Add driver for tja1103 driver and for future NXP C45 PHYs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Radu Pirea (NXP OSS)
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 6 +
> drivers/net/phy/Kconfig | 6 +
> drivers/net/phy/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/net/phy/nxp-c45.c |
20 matches
Mail list logo
