[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220722145936.497ac73f@dellmb>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:59:36 +0200
From: Marek BehĂșn <kabel@...nel.org>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Alvin __ipraga <alsi@...g-olufsen.dk>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
George McCollister <george.mccollister@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: add support for retrieving the
interface mode
On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 21:22:16 +0300
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 07:21:45PM +0200, Marek BehĂșn wrote:
> > Marvell documentation says that 2500base-x does not implement inband
> > AN.
>
> Does Marvell documentation actually call it 2500base-x when it says it
> doesn't support in-band autoneg?
Yes, it does.
> > But when it was first implemented, for some reason it was thought that
> > 2500base-x is just 1000base-x at 2.5x speed, and 1000base-x does
> > support inband AN. Also it worked during tests for both switches and
> > SOC NICs, so it was enabled.
> >
> > At the time 2500base-x was not standardized. Now 2500base-x is
> > stanradrized, and the standard says that 2500base-x does not support
> > clause 37 AN. I guess this is because where it is used, it is intended
> > to work with clause 73 AN somehow.
>
> When you say 2500base-x is standardized, do you mean there is a document
> somewhere which I could use to read more about this?
IEEE Std 802.3cb-2018: Amendment 1: Physical Layer Specifications and
Management Parameters for 2.5 Gb/s and 5 Gb/s Operation over Backplane.
Annex 127A (informative): Compatibility of 2.5GBASE-X PCS/PMA with
1000BASE-X PCS/PMA running 2.5 times faster
...
This annex discusses the restrictions when operating 2.5GBASE-X
PCS/PMA with a 1000BASE-X PCS/PMA link partner running 2.5 times
faster. Compatibility of the PMD is outside the scope of this annex.
In this annex when 1000BASE-X PCS/PMA is referred to, the 2.5 times
speed up is implied.
...
The 2.5GBASE-X PCS does not support Clause 37 Auto-Negotiation.
Hence, the 1000BASE-X PCS is expected to have its Clause 37
Auto-Negotiation functionality disabled so that the /C/ ordered set
will not be transmitted. If a 2.5GBASE-X PCS receives /C/ ordered
set, then undefined behavior may occur.
...
Marek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists