netdev - Re: Ethernet not working on a different SoC with same eth HW

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <581C9799.3040101@free.fr>
Date:   Fri, 4 Nov 2016 15:13:45 +0100
From:   Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
To:     Mans Rullgard <mans@...sr.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
        Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
        Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurtisi@...atec.com>,
        Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-Konig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Daniel Mack <zonque@...il.com>,
        Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>
Subject: Re: Ethernet not working on a different SoC with same eth HW

On 04/11/2016 15:04, Måns Rullgård wrote:

> Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> writes:
> 
>>> Considering the ethernet DT bindings:
>>>
>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ethernet.txt
>>>
>>> Specifically, phy-mode values "rgmii", "rgmii-id", "rgmii-rxid", "rgmii-txid".
>>>
>>> Assuming that "rxid" (rx internal delay) and "rx clock delay" are
>>> in fact the same concept with different names, do you agree that
>>> it would be unexpected for "rgmii rx clock delay" to be enabled
>>> when a DTB specifies "rgmii" or "rgmii-txid" ?
>>
>> I agree with you. But fixing it is likely to break boards which
>> currently have "rgmii", but actually need the delay in order to work.
> 
> Does the internal delay here refer to the PHY or the MAC?  It's a
> property of the MAC node after all.

Isn't there a one-to-one correspondence between MAC and PHY?

Can a MAC be connected to multiple PHYs?
Can a PHY be connected to multiple MACs?

If it is a one-to-one correspondence, then whether the
property is specified in the MAC or PHY node is just a
matter of presentation, IMHO.

Regards.