From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.242]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3751FDDF29 for ; Fri, 2 May 2008 02:52:28 +1000 (EST) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c34so278559anc.78 for ; Thu, 01 May 2008 09:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:52:26 -0600 From: "Grant Likely" Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca To: "Wolfgang Grandegger" Subject: Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] mpc5200: Allow for fixed speed MII configurations In-Reply-To: <4819F1F3.2000406@grandegger.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <20080429230620.11248.25729.stgit@trillian.secretlab.ca> <4819F1F3.2000406@grandegger.com> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, Domen Puncer List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Hi Grant, > > > Grant Likely wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > >> From: Grant Likely > >> > >> Various improvements for configuring the MPC5200 MII link from the > >> device tree: > >> * Look for 'current-speed' property for fixed speed MII links > >> * Look for 'fsl,7-wire-mode' property for boards using the 7 wire mode > >> * move definition of private data structure out of the header file > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely > > > > Any more comments on this patch? I want to push it to Paulus, but I'd > > like to have someone ack it first. > > > > Wolfgang, you used the previous version of this patch. Does this one > > work for you? > > Sorry for the late answer. The patch works fine (under Linux 2.6.24) on > my board with a 3-port Micrel ethernet switch. There is still a minor > issue, though: > > >> - of_node_put(phy_dn); > >> + /* Start with safe defaults for link connection */ > >> + priv->phy_addr = FEC5200_PHYADDR_NONE; > >> + priv->speed = 100; > >> + priv->duplex = 0; > > priv->duplex is re-defined here. And instead of "0" we should use > DUPLEX_HALF. Oops, Fixed. If you reply with your 'acked-by' line, then I'll push this one to Paul so it can get into .26 Thanks, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.