[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200327154448.GK11004@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 16:44:48 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Florinel Iordache <florinel.iordache@....com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"hkallweit1@...il.com" <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Leo Li <leoyang.li@....com>,
"Madalin Bucur (OSS)" <madalin.bucur@....nxp.com>,
Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next 2/9] dt-bindings: net: add backplane
dt bindings
> What worries me is the situation which I've been working on, where
> we want access to the PCS PHYs, and we can't have the PCS PHYs
> represented as a phylib PHY because we may have a copper PHY behind
> the PCS PHY, and we want to be talking to the copper PHY in the
> first instance (the PCS PHY effectivel ybecomes a slave to the
> copper PHY.)
I guess we need to clarify what KR actually means. If we have a
backplane with a MAC on each end, i think modelling it as a PHY could
work.
If however, we have a MAC connected to a backplane, and on the end of
the backplane is a traditional PHY, or an SFP cage, we have problems.
As your point out, we cannot have two PHYs in a chain for one MAC.
But i agree with Russell. We need a general solution of how we deal
with PCSs.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists