[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <VI1PR04MB4799222839701D318B3483FBF2560@VI1PR04MB4799.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:14:31 +0000
From: Camelia Alexandra Groza <camelia.groza@....com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
"rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk" <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] net: phy: use generic clause 45 autonegotiation done
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-
> owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Camelia Alexandra Groza
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 15:47
> To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> Cc: rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk; f.fainelli@...il.com;
> davem@...emloft.net; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] net: phy: use generic clause 45 autonegotiation done
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Lunn [mailto:andrew@...n.ch]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 17:39
> > To: Camelia Alexandra Groza <camelia.groza@....com>
> > Cc: f.fainelli@...il.com; davem@...emloft.net; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> > linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: use generic clause 45 autonegotiation
> > done
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 04:12:15PM +0300, Camelia Groza wrote:
> > > Only Clause 22 PHYs can use genphy_aneg_done(). Use
> > > genphy_c45_aneg_done() for PHYs that implement Clause 45 without
> the
> > > Clause 22 register set.
> > >
> > > This change follows the model of phy_restart_aneg() which
> > > differentiates between the two implementations in a similar way.
> >
> > Hi Camelia
> >
> > What about phy_config_aneg()? I would assume any sort of auto-neg
> > action needs to check for c45 without c22, before calling a genphy_
> > function. Do you think it is possible to write a
> > genphy_c45_config_aneg()? If not, we might want to return -
> EOPNOTSUPP.
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Adding Russell to the thread as well, since he wrote the c45 helpers.
>
> Sure, I'll send a v2 with an additional generic phy_config_aneg(). I'll stick to
> returning -EOPNOTSUPP for c22-less PHYs for now.
Since the phy_config_aneg() call isn't synced on the net tree yet, I sent the second patch independently on net-next [1]. Please review this patch separately if it's ok.
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/947831/
Thank you,
Camelia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists