On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:47 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 10:06 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > On Friday 11 April 2008, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > PHY ID 0x0 isn't an invalid id, I got a Broadcom PHY that has
> > > PHY ID=0. Maybe I am misundersta
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 10:06 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Friday 11 April 2008, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 13:51 -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > > In addition to marking 0x0 as an invalid PHY ID, I've also
> > > changed the existing somewhat useless printk to actually
> >
On Friday 11 April 2008, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 13:51 -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > In addition to marking 0x0 as an invalid PHY ID, I've also
> > changed the existing somewhat useless printk to actually
> > list the bus IDs where it found a PHY so we get a basic
> > bus
On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 13:51 -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> I've tested on 8360, 8540 and 8641D and in all cases, the PHY
> ID returned for bus addr 0x1f is all zeros, and not all 0xf.
> This means we've been allocating a phydev for this "ghost".
>
> In addition to marking 0x0 as an invalid PHY ID
I've tested on 8360, 8540 and 8641D and in all cases, the PHY
ID returned for bus addr 0x1f is all zeros, and not all 0xf.
This means we've been allocating a phydev for this "ghost".
In addition to marking 0x0 as an invalid PHY ID, I've also
changed the existing somewhat useless printk to actually
