RE: Re: signal quality and cable diagnostic

RE: Re: signal quality and cable diagnostic

[Christian Herber]

On May 11, 2020 4:33:53 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
>
> Are the classes part of the Open Alliance specification? Ideally we
> want to report something standardized, not something proprietary to
> NXP.
>
>        Andrew

Hi Andrew,

Such mechanisms are standardized and supported by pretty much all devices in the market. The Open Alliance specification is publicly available here: http://www.opensig.org/download/document/218/Advanced_PHY_features_for_automotive_Ethernet_V1.0.pdf

As the specification is newer than the 100BASE-T1 spec, do not expect first generation devices to follow the register definitions as per Open Alliance. But for future devices, also registers should be same across different vendors.

Christian

Re: Re: signal quality and cable diagnostic

[Andrew Lunn]

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 07:32:05PM +0000, Christian Herber wrote:
> On May 11, 2020 4:33:53 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
> >
> > Are the classes part of the Open Alliance specification? Ideally we
> > want to report something standardized, not something proprietary to
> > NXP.
> >
> >        Andrew
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 

> Such mechanisms are standardized and supported by pretty much all
> devices in the market. The Open Alliance specification is publicly
> available here:
> http://www.opensig.org/download/document/218/Advanced_PHY_features_for_automotive_Ethernet_V1.0.pdf
> 
> As the specification is newer than the 100BASE-T1 spec, do not
> expect first generation devices to follow the register definitions
> as per Open Alliance. But for future devices, also registers should
> be same across different vendors.

Hi Christian

Since we are talking about a kernel/user API definition here, i don't
care about the exact registers. What is important is the
naming/representation of the information. It seems like NXP uses Class
A - Class H, where as the standard calls them SQI=0 - SQI=7. So we
should name the KAPI based on the standard, not what NXP calls them.

       Andrew

Re: Re: signal quality and cable diagnostic

[Oleksij Rempel]

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:54:35PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 07:32:05PM +0000, Christian Herber wrote:
> > On May 11, 2020 4:33:53 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > > Are the classes part of the Open Alliance specification? Ideally we
> > > want to report something standardized, not something proprietary to
> > > NXP.
> > >
> > >        Andrew
> > 
> > Hi Andrew,
> > 
> 
> > Such mechanisms are standardized and supported by pretty much all
> > devices in the market. The Open Alliance specification is publicly
> > available here:
> > http://www.opensig.org/download/document/218/Advanced_PHY_features_for_automotive_Ethernet_V1.0.pdf
> > 
> > As the specification is newer than the 100BASE-T1 spec, do not
> > expect first generation devices to follow the register definitions
> > as per Open Alliance. But for future devices, also registers should
> > be same across different vendors.
> 
> Hi Christian
> 
> Since we are talking about a kernel/user API definition here, i don't
> care about the exact registers. What is important is the
> naming/representation of the information. It seems like NXP uses Class
> A - Class H, where as the standard calls them SQI=0 - SQI=7. So we
> should name the KAPI based on the standard, not what NXP calls them.

OK, sounds good for me.

Regards,
Oleksij

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |