From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from inaccessnetworks.com (node3.inaccessnetworks.com [212.205.200.118]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E16ADDECF for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:24:17 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:24:01 +0300 To: "Alexandros Kostopoulos" , "Scott Wood" Subject: Re: About mdio_bus for 82xx based board From: "Alexandros Kostopoulos" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-7 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20070725162305.GA26276@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Oops! I've just noticed in your previous mail that I need to apply the patches to Paul's tree...Sorry 'bout that... my mistake alex On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:42:46 +0300, Alexandros Kostopoulos wrote: > Hello Scott, > > Thanks for your response. I'm trying to apply your patches to vanilla > 2.6.22.1 kernel, but unfortunately some patches fail, namely: > > patching file arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8272ads.dts > Hunk #1 FAILED at 10. > > patching file arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile > Hunk #1 FAILED at 44. > > patching file arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile > Hunk #1 FAILED at 48. > > patching file arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig > Hunk #1 FAILED at 19. > > and others, and also some patches appear to be already applied. > > Maybe I'm patching the wrong kernel version? > > thanks > > Alex > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:23:05 +0300, Scott Wood > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 05:22:40PM +0300, Alexandros Kostopoulos wrote: >>> 1) When mdiobus_register() called from mii-bitbang.c >>> (fs_enet_mdio_probe() >>> function) attemps to do a device_register for the mdio bus, it actually >>> registers the device with a bus_id in the form [0|1|...]:, >>> that >>> is the first part a simple integer. This, of course, happens because >>> fs_enet_of_init() (fsl_soc.c) does a >>> platform_device_register_simple("fsl-bb-mdio", i, NULL, 0); with i >>> being >>> the first part of the bus, starting from 0. Unfortunately, when >>> fs_init_phy() (fs_enet_main.c) calls phy_connect() and therefore >>> phy_attach() (phy_device.c), the latter attempts to find the device in >>> the >>> mdio bus, but it searches using the bus_id registered in the net_device >>> struct, which is in the form of :, eg. >>> f0000000:0, and therefore it fails... I don't know if I am doing >>> something >>> wrong here, so any hint would be greatly appreciated. >> >> The code is broken. Try applying the set of 61 patches I posted a week >> or so ago (you'll need to apply them to Paul's tree from around the same >> time, not the current tree). >> >>> 2) Since there are two ethernet@
nodes in my device tree, >>> fs_of_enet_init() calls >>> platform_device_register_simple("fsl-bb-mdio",...) >>> twice, therefore creating two mdio busses, 0 and 1, each having the >>> same >>> two devices. For example, if I have two PHYs with addresses 1 and 5, I >>> will get two mdio busses and 4 devices, 0:1, 0:5, 1:1 and 1:5. Well, >>> this >>> doesn't sound right to me, although I am not sure if this is a fatal >>> issue. Any comments? >> >> It's not right -- my patchset gets rid of all of this mess. >> >>> 3) Also, if I don't want to enter the phy interrupt in the device tree >>> (there is not one or I want to use PHY_POLL), what should I do? dtc >>> seems >>> to not allow -1 as a value in the reg property. >> >> Leave the property out altogether. >> >> -Scott >