[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <85c07e51-8a0b-4328-bab3-acad2ee104e1@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 15:30:28 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>
Cc: Marek BehĂșn <kabel@...nel.org>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
paul.arola@...us.com, scott.roberts@...us.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: enable support for
88E6361 switch
> >> Ports 1 and 2 should hopefully be protected by the
> >> invalid_port_mask. It should not even be possible to create those
> >> ports. port 0 is interesting, and possibly currently broken on
> >> 6393. Please take a look at that.
> >
> > Why would port 0 be broken on 6393x ?
> By "broken", I guess Andrew means that if we feed port 0 to
> mv88e6xxx_phy_is_internal, it will return true, which is wrong since there is no
> internal phy for port 0 on 6393X ?
Yes, that is what i was thinking. But i did not spend the time to look
at the code see if this is actually true. There might be a special
case somewhere in the code.
But in general, we try to avoid special cases, and add device specific
ops.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists