[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ad1e81b5-1596-4d94-a0fa-1828d667b7a2@lunn.ch>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:25:27 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Suraj Gupta <suraj.gupta2@....com>
Cc: radhey.shyam.pandey@....com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
michal.simek@....com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, git@....com,
harini.katakam@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 2/2] net: axienet: Add support for 2500base-X
only configuration.
> + /* AXI 1G/2.5G ethernet IP has following synthesis options:
> + * 1) SGMII/1000base-X only.
> + * 2) 2500base-X only.
> + * 3) Dynamically switching between (1) and (2), and is not
> + * implemented in driver.
> + */
> +
> + if (axienet_ior(lp, XAE_ABILITY_OFFSET) & XAE_ABILITY_2_5G)
How can we tell if the synthesis allows 3)?
Don't we have a backwards compatibility issue here? Maybe there are
systems which have been synthesised with 3), but are currently limited
to 1) due to the driver. If you don't differentiate between 2 and 3,
such systems are going to swap to 2) and regress.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists