[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b1401da6-5bab-2e4c-e667-aca0bbf013dc@microchip.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 15:22:04 +0200
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
To: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next PATCH 08/16] net: macb: Clean up macb_validate
On 04/10/2021 at 21:15, Sean Anderson wrote:
> While we're on the subject, could someone clarify the relationship
> between the various speed capabilities? What's the difference between
> MACB_CAPS_GIGABIT_MODE_AVAILABLE, MACB_CAPS_HIGH_SPEED, MACB_CAPS_PCS,
> and macb_is_gem()? Would there ever be a GEM without GIGABIT_MODE?
Yes. GEM is a new revision of the IP that is capable of doing Gigabit
mode or not. sama7g5_emac_config is typically one of those doing only
10/100.
> HIGH_SPEED without PCS? Why doesn't SGMII care if we're a gem (I think
> this one is a bug, because it cares later on)?
MACB_CAPS_HIGH_SPEED and MACB_CAPS_PCS were added by
e4e143e26ce8f5f57c60a994bdc63d0ddce3a823 ("net: macb: add support for
high speed interface"). In this commit it is said that "This controller
has separate MAC's and PCS'es for low and high speed paths." Maybe it's
a hint.
Best regards,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas Ferre
Powered by blists - more mailing lists