[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180328152719.GF19452@lunn.ch>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:27:19 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Vicenţiu Galanopulo <vicentiu.galanopulo@....com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"marcel@...tmann.org" <marcel@...tmann.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Madalin-cristian Bucur <madalin.bucur@....com>,
Alexandru Marginean <alexandru.marginean@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] net: phy: Added device tree binding for dev-addr
and dev-addr code check-up
> If this is a rare case and something future devices should get right,
> then I'm more inclined to use 'dev-addr' rather than extending reg.
Hi Rob
The sample size is a bit small at the moment to know how rare it is.
I think we have 6 C45 devices so far, and two get this wrong. C45 is
mostly used for PHY device with > 1Gbps. There are not so many of
these yet.
I would also prefer to use 'dev-addr'.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists