[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <61f88d08-b741-48d0-90cb-9554907a9dec@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 19:10:05 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: "Radu Pirea (NXP OSS)" <radu-nicolae.pirea@....nxp.com>
Cc: hkallweit1@...il.com, linux@...linux.org.uk, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
richardcochran@...il.com, sd@...asysnail.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v1 3/5] net: phy: nxp-c45-tja11xx add MACsec
support
> +#define VEND1_MACSEC_BASE 0x9000
> +
> +#define MACSEC_CFG 0x0000
> +#define MACSEC_CFG_BYPASS BIT(1)
> +#define MACSEC_CFG_S0I BIT(0)
> +
> +#define MACSEC_TPNET 0x0044
> +static int nxp_c45_macsec_write(struct phy_device *phydev, u16 reg, u32 val)
> +{
> + reg = reg / 2;
That is a bit odd. How does the data sheet describe these
registers. e.g. MACSEC_TPNET. Does it say 0x9022 and 0x9023? It seems
it would be easy to mix this up and end up accessing 0x9011 and
0x9012.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists