From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from de01egw02.freescale.net (de01egw02.freescale.net [192.88.165.103]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "de01egw02.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DBA8DDECA for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 01:29:37 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <46409759.1020105@freescale.com> Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 10:29:29 -0500 From: Scott Wood MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] Document the fsl, magic-packet property in gianfar nodes. References: <20070507182947.GD26920@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <463F9A38.6080408@freescale.com> <3FE06AFA-BEE6-46CF-B12C-29D979AE50D7@kernel.crashing.org> In-Reply-To: <3FE06AFA-BEE6-46CF-B12C-29D979AE50D7@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Kumar Gala wrote: > On May 7, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Andy Fleming wrote: >> Yeah, I just read that. You should either make that more explicit in >> the documentation, or make it generic. It's fine if there are >> drivers/devices that don't need to be told or tell anyone that they >> recognize magic packets for them to work. The lack of the property >> in other controllers won't break anything. >> >> But I'm fine if you just document that the bit indicates, >> specifically, the presence of magic-packet bits in certain registers >> on the eTSEC. > > I'd ask is it really freescale specific? In that I'd assume its > support for the standard wake-on-lan packet. It is the standard wake-on-lan packet, but the intent of the property is not to advertise to the entire system that this device supports it, but rather to indicate that the MPEN bit and the like are valid for the driver to use. Making it standard means that someone might use it for other purposes, such as pm config tools digging around in /proc/device-tree (sure, they could just use ethtool -- but they might not), which would mean that all magic-packet-capable devices (gianfar or not) would need the property. If we want to do that, fine -- but that change is at a different scope than the one I made. -Scott