lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1] ethtool: provide UAPI for PHY master/slave configuration.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:11:45AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:57:39PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
> > > index c8b0c34030d32..d5edf2bc40e43 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
> > > @@ -604,6 +604,7 @@ struct phy_device *phy_device_create(struct mii_bus *bus, int addr, u32 phy_id,
> > > dev->asym_pause = 0;
> > > dev->link = 0;
> > > dev->interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII;
> > > + dev->master_slave = PORT_MODE_UNKNOWN;
> >
> > phydev->master_slave is how we want the PHY to be configured. I don't
> > think PORT_MODE_UNKNOWN makes any sense in that contest. 802.3 gives
> > some defaults. 9.12 should be 0, meaning manual master/slave
> > configuration is disabled. The majority of linux devices are end
> > systems. So we should default to a single point device. So i would
> > initialise PORT_MODE_SLAVE, or whatever we end up calling that.
>
> I'm not sure that is a good idea given that we use phylib to drive
> the built-in PHYs in DSA switches, which ought to prefer master mode
> via the "is a multiport device" bit.

O.K. So i assume you mean we should read from the PHY at probe time
what it is doing, in order to initialise dev->master_slave?

I would be happy with that.

Andrew

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-17 16:33    [W:0.057 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site