[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180122205459.GF2467@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:54:59 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.co.uk>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
Ian Ray <ian.ray@...com>, Nandor Han <nandor.han@...com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 1/5] net: dsa: Support internal phy on 'cpu' port
> Note: there is still technically a misreprentation of how the PHY is
> "attached" to the network device. In your DTSes, you have to have the
> CPU port have a "phy-handle" to the internal PHY, while technically it
> should be the i210 which has a "phy-handle" property to that PHY, and
> even better, if the e1000e/idb drivers were PHYLIB capable, they could
> manage it directly.
Hi Florian
Err, i don't think i agree. But maybe i'm missunderstanding.
We have two back-to-back PHYs. I would expect the i210 MAC to have a
phy-handle pointing it its PHY. The CPU port would then point to the
internal switch PHY.
Or are you suggesting the i210 has two phy-handles, its own and the
switches?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists