[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YqSxtvZUEmaxmihV@lunn.ch>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 17:16:06 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 3/3] net: phy: dp83td510: disable cable test
support for 1Vpp PHYs
> static int dp83td510_cable_test_start(struct phy_device *phydev)
> {
> - int ret;
> + struct dp83td510_priv *priv = phydev->priv;
> + int ret, cfg = 0;
> +
> + /* Generate 2.4Vpp pulse if HW is allowed to do so */
> + if (priv->allow_v2_4_mode) {
> + cfg |= DP83TD510E_TDR_TX_TYPE;
> + } else {
> + /* This PHY do not provide usable results with 1Vpp pulse.
s/do/does
> + * Potentially different dp83td510_tdr_init() values are
> + * needed.
> + */
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
I don't remember the details for v2.4. Is it possible to change up
from 1v to 2.4v for the duration of the cable test? Is there a danger
to damage the link peer? I guess not, since you need to pass EMC
testing which zaps it with 100Kv or something. So is this more a local
supply issue?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists