[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ec4c642-6a31-8e33-d7bd-e7f8882d7e3b@microchip.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 10:12:12 +0200
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
To: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next PATCH 08/16] net: macb: Clean up macb_validate
Sean,
On 08/10/2021 at 02:20, Sean Anderson wrote:
>
> On 10/7/21 9:22 AM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> On 04/10/2021 at 21:15, Sean Anderson wrote:
>>> While we're on the subject, could someone clarify the relationship
>>> between the various speed capabilities? What's the difference between
>>> MACB_CAPS_GIGABIT_MODE_AVAILABLE, MACB_CAPS_HIGH_SPEED, MACB_CAPS_PCS,
>>> and macb_is_gem()? Would there ever be a GEM without GIGABIT_MODE?
>>
>> Yes. GEM is a new revision of the IP that is capable of doing Gigabit
>> mode or not. sama7g5_emac_config is typically one of those doing only
>> 10/100.
>
> Thanks for pointing that out. But even that config still has
> MACB_CAPS_GIGABIT_MODE_AVAILABLE. So presumably you can use it for
> gigabit speed if you don't use MII-on-RGMII. I suppose that
> sama7g5_emac_config is not a GEM?
There must be a confusion between sama7g5_gem_config and
sama7g5_emac_config here. The later one doesn't have this
MACB_CAPS_GIGABIT_MODE_AVAILABLE capability.
Both are flavors of GEM and identified as such in the driver.
Best regards,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas Ferre
Powered by blists - more mailing lists