[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <07dd8427-4779-1706-3c0a-17ae58939c41@synopsys.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:46:09 +0000
From: Jose Abreu <jose.abreu@...opsys.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
CC: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Jose Abreu <jose.abreu@...opsys.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Joao Pinto <joao.pinto@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: phy: Don't assume loopback is supported
Hi Andrew and Heiner,
On 3/17/2019 6:38 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 03:48:41PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 3/14/19 3:37 AM, Jose Abreu wrote:
>>> Some PHYs may not support loopback mode so we need to check if register
>>> is read-only.
>>>
>>
>> In that case it may be appropriate to have a specific PHY driver that
>> implements a set_loopback() method returning -EOPNOTSUPP instead of
>> changing the generic PHY implementation.
>
> Hi Jose
>
> Since Heiner says this is a mandatory feature, we should not really
> penalise conformant PHYs just because there is one broken PHY.
We provide PHYs to our customers and in the documentation I have
this can be an optional feature that HW team can choose to have
or not, making the bit read-only or r/w.
Heiner, can you please confirm there is no Clause 22 "pitfalls" /
"hidden comments" that allow this bitfield to be read-only ?
Thanks,
Jose Miguel Abreu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists