[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ca20895b-9223-4af6-b49c-e405b69e5f08@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 14:39:50 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
upstream@...oha.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v11 9/9] net: phy: Add Airoha AN8855 Internal
Switch Gigabit PHY
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 01:10:45PM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 02:36:29AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > +config AIR_AN8855_PHY
> > > + tristate "Airoha AN8855 Internal Gigabit PHY"
> > > + help
> > > + Currently supports the internal Airoha AN8855 Switch PHY.
> > > +
> > > config AIR_EN8811H_PHY
> > > tristate "Airoha EN8811H 2.5 Gigabit PHY"
> > > help
> >
> > Do you have any idea why the new one is AN, and previous one is EN? I
> > just like consistent naming, or an explanation why it is not
> > consistent.
> >
>
> EN EcoNet that was then absorbed by Airoha (AN). Hence it's the same
> thing. Airoha is suggesting to use AN for new submission. So it's just
> about timing.
Thanks for the explanation.
>
> > > +#define AN8855_PHY_ID 0xc0ff0410
> > > +static struct phy_driver an8855_driver[] = {
> > > +{
> > > + PHY_ID_MATCH_EXACT(AN8855_PHY_ID),
> >
> > Is there any documentation about the ID, and the lower nibble. Given
> > it is 0, i'm wondering if PHY_ID_MATCH_EXACT() is correct.
> >
>
> I will check this but I doubt there is any explaination. These are internal
> to the switch so my theory is that no exact logic was applied.
O.K. It can always be changed later, if a different revision of the
PHY appears.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists