[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171214094654.GD19186@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:46:54 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de,
patchwork-lst@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: phy: add support to detect 100BASE-T1 capability
> > Hi Lucas
> >
> > Why did you decide to do this, and not add a SUPPORTED_100baseT1?
> >
> > Could a device support both 100-BASE-T and 100-BASE-T1? If at some
> > point we need to differentiate between them, it is going to be
> > hard. Especially since this is part of the kernel ABI.
>
> Networking and especially PHY isn't really my primary area of
> expertise, so excuse my ignorance. My reasoning was that we don't
> differentiate between 100BASE-T2 and 100BASE-T4 in the kernel today, so
> I thought it was fine to handle T1 the same way.
>
> There are PHYs that can both do regular 100/1000 MBit Ethernet and
> 100BASE-T1, but definitely not at the same time or over the same
> electrical wiring. 100BASE-T1 is really different in that it uses
> capacitive coupling, instead of magnetic like on regular Ethernet. So
> it is really a board level decision what gets used and is not something
> I would expect to change at runtime.
Hi Lucus
http://www.marvell.com/docs/automotive/assets/marvell-automotive-ethernet-88Q5050-product-brief-2017-07.pdf
This is a Marvell 8-port switch. It appears it can switch some of its
ports between T1, TX, xMII, GMII and SGMII.
So maybe an end device is fixed to 100BASE-T1, but it looks like
switches could be more flexible.
So i think we should be able to differentiate between T1 and TX.
We might also need an PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_100BASE_T1.
Florian, what do you think?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists