[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190128152621.2aec96c1@bootlin.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:26:21 +0100
From: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>,
thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, gregory.clement@...tlin.com,
miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, nadavh@...vell.com, stefanc@...vell.com,
mw@...ihalf.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/7] net: phy: marvell10g: Force reading of
2.5/5G PMA extended abilities
Hello Russell,
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:00:30 +0000
Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 01:29:45PM +0100, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
>> Hello Russell,
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:52:06 +0000
>> Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> >It's entirely possible that the 3310 switches to different hardware
>> >blocks for 2.5G and 5G speeds, and reading _just_ the 1.4 register
>> >is not sufficient.
>>
>> I agree with you but in that particular case, I think we are reading
>> from the correct device. The datasheet itself says that we should be
>> reading 1.4 and 1.11 as we expect, with 2.5G/5G support being set (these
>> registers are read-only, and the datasheet's values aren't what we
>> actually read).
>
>No, you missed what I was saying.
>
>The 88x3310 is a hybrid device. It contains multiple instances of
>each individual device at different offsets in each MMD address space.
Ah I see, I indeed thought you refered to the MMDs.
[...]
>The exception seems to be the PMA/PMD MMD which I've only discovered
>a single instance.
Yes there only seems to be one. There are some other registers in the
1.0xCxxx range, but those who are documented don't help a lot with
determing wether or not these modes are supported.
I wonder if these values are correctly reported in newer PHY firmware
revisions.
I've checked other PCS instances, but it seems the one at 3.0x0xxx is
the one used in 2.5/5GBASET.
I've tested with other PHYs from this family, it looks like they are
derivatives of the 33x0 design, with the addition/removal of internal
IPs. Since the 2110 returns the correct values and has a similar
design, with the PMA returning the correct abilities, I think we are
reading from the correct instance.
Thanks,
Maxime
--
Maxime Chevallier, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists