From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932216AbcFNWoa (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:44:30 -0400 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([178.209.37.122]:46355 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932130AbcFNWo2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:44:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:44:25 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Vivien Didelot Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@savoirfairelinux.com, "David S. Miller" , Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next v2 12/12] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: add addressing mode to info Message-ID: <20160614224425.GL12832@lunn.ch> References: <20160614183153.32327-1-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> <20160614183153.32327-13-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> <20160614220941.GJ12832@lunn.ch> <871t3z1ka6.fsf@ketchup.mtl.sfl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871t3z1ka6.fsf@ketchup.mtl.sfl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 06:24:17PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Andrew Lunn writes: > > >> - ret = mdiobus_read_nested(bus, addr, reg); > >> + ret = mdiobus_read_nested(bus, sw_addr + addr, reg); > >> if (ret < 0) > >> return ret; > > > > If we are doing direct access, doesn't it means sw_addr is 0? > > > > So isn't this pointless? > > 6060 has no indirect access and directly responds to 16 SMI addresses, > regardless its chip address which can be strapped to either 0 or 16. Ah! O.K. wnr854t-setup.c uses 0. rd88f6183ap-ge-setup.c uses 0. wrt350n-v2-setup.c uses 0. rd88f5181l-fxo-setup.c uses 0. rd88f5181l-ge-setup.c uses 0. mach-bf518/boards/ezbrd.c uses 0. The 6060 is a very old device. I doubt we will get any new boards contributed using it. We are also going to have trouble actually finding a device with one in order to test a merged mv88e6xxx and mv88e6060 driver. So i say we ignore the possibility of an 6060 on 16, until one really comes along. > Question 2) is MV88E6XXX_FLAG_MULTI_CHIP confusing? No, i think it is fine. Andrew