[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZwAb3DNWYl0ykRBl@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 18:46:20 +0200
From: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
To: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/9] net: phy: Allow PHY drivers to report
isolation support
On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 06:15:53PM +0200, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> Some PHYs have malfunctionning isolation modes, where the MII lines
> aren't correctly set in high-impedance, potentially interfering with the
> MII bus in unexpected ways. Some other PHYs simply don't support it.
Do we have in this case multiple isolation variants like high-impedance
and "the other one"? :) Do the "the other one" is still usable for some
cases like Wake on LAN without shared xMII?
I'm just curios.
Regards,
Oleksij
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists