[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <1176475990.3766.3.camel@dhollis-lnx.sunera.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:53:10 +0000
From: David Hollis <dhollis@...ehollis.com>
To: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@...escale.com>
Cc: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: phylib usage
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 16:42 -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:03:56 +0200
> Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:20:52PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> >
> > > (note I'm coming from an embedded world here.)
> >
> > Please read this:
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=116527863300952&w=2
>
> Not sure how to interpret that. My point was I don't see as much PHY variation in non-embedded applications.
>
> Kim
There may not be as much, but there definitely are still cases where
there are devices that may have one of three or four different PHYs.
I'm not in the embedded world, but while I know that there are
differences, it isn't THAT different that something as potentially
useful as PHY abstraction wouldn't be useful for regular PCI/USB network
interfaces.
Or are there too many cases where NIC x needs to do these fiddlings with
PHY y, where as NIC z has to do different fiddlings with PHY y?
Again, I don't have a lot of experience with Ethernet devices but in
looking at a lot of the different driver code, it looks like they all
fiddle with the PHYs in basically the same way, though some drivers do
more, some less. Most likely due to lack of access to errata and such
or issues just not cropping up that need to be fixed.
--
David Hollis <dhollis@...ehollis.com>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists