> 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
> 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
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
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) },
> + {
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
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.
> 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
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
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 |
>
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
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?
>
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:
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
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 | 622 ++
4 files changed,
21 matches
Mail list logo
