netdev - Re: Broken imx6 to QCA8334 connection since PHYLIB to PHYLINK conversion

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: <9fa83984-f385-4705-a50f-688928cc366f@ysoft.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Apr 2021 09:09:37 +0200
From:   Michal Vokáč <michal.vokac@...ft.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Jonathan McDowell <noodles@...th.li>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Broken imx6 to QCA8334 connection since PHYLIB to PHYLINK
 conversion

On 12. 04. 21 16:14, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.12-rc7/source/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-yapp4-common.dtsi#L101
> 
> &fec {
> 	pinctrl-names = "default";
> 	pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_enet>;
> 	phy-mode = "rgmii-id";
> 	phy-reset-gpios = <&gpio1 25 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> 	phy-reset-duration = <20>;
> 	phy-supply = <&sw2_reg>;
> 	phy-handle = <&ethphy0>;
> 	status = "okay";
> 
> 	mdio {
> 		#address-cells = <1>;
> 		#size-cells = <0>;
> 
> 		phy_port2: phy@1 {
> 			reg = <1>;
> 		};
> 
> 		phy_port3: phy@2 {
> 			reg = <2>;
> 		};
> 
> 		switch@10 {
> 			compatible = "qca,qca8334";
> 			reg = <10>;
> 
> 			switch_ports: ports {
> 				#address-cells = <1>;
> 				#size-cells = <0>;
> 
> 				ethphy0: port@0 {
> 					reg = <0>;
> 					label = "cpu";
> 					phy-mode = "rgmii-id";
> 					ethernet = <&fec>;
> 
> 					fixed-link {
> 						speed = <1000>;
> 						full-duplex;
> 					};
> 				};
> 
> The fec phy-handle = <&ethphy0>; is pointing to the PHY of switch port
> 0. This seems wrong.

I do not understand. Why this seems wrong?
The switch has four ports. Ports 2 and 3 have a PHY and are connected
to the transformers/RJ45 connectors. Port 0 is MII/RMII/RGMII of
the switch. Port 6 (not used) is a SerDes.

> Does the FEC have a PHY? Do you connect the FEC
> and the SWITCH at the RGMII level? Or with two back to back PHYs?
> 
> If you are doing it RGMII level, the FEC also needs a fixed-link.

The FEC does not have PHY and is connected to the switch at RGMII level.
Adding the fixed-link { speed = <1000>; full-duplex; }; subnode to FEC
does not help.

Michal