Re: net: micrel: confusion about phyids used in driver

["allan.nielsen@microchip.com" <allan.nielsen@microchip.com>]

The 08/21/2019 10:24, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> +Allan,
> 
> On 8/20/19 1:25 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello Nicolas,
> > 
> > there are some open questions regarding details about some PHYs
> > supported in the drivers/net/phy/micrel.c driver.
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 10:36:37AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 08:55:07PM +0000, Yuiko.Oshino@microchip.com wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 09:22:43AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 11:07:45PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 10:55:29PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 09.05.2019 22:29, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I have a board here that has a KSZ8051MLL (datasheet:
> >>>>>>>> http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/ksz8051mll.pdf, phyid:
> >>>>>>>> 0x0022155x) assembled. The actual phyid is 0x00221556.
> > 
> > The short version is that a phy with ID 0x00221556 matches two
> > phy_driver entries in the driver:
> > 
> > 	{ .phy_id = PHY_ID_KSZ8031, .phy_id_mask = 0x00ffffff, ... },
> > 	{ .phy_id = PHY_ID_KSZ8051, .phy_id_mask = MICREL_PHY_ID_MASK, ... }
> > 
> > The driver doesn't behave optimal for "my" KSZ8051MLL with both entries
> > ... It seems to work, but not all features of the phy are used and the
> > bootlog claims this was a KSZ8031 because that's the first match in the
> > list.
> > 
> > So we're in need of someone who can get their hands on some more
> > detailed documentation than publicly available to allow to make the
> > driver handle the KSZ8051MLL correctly without breaking other stuff.
> > 
> > I assume you are in a different department of Microchip than the people
> > caring for PHYs, but maybe you can still help finding someone who cares?
> 
> Allan, is this something you could help with? Thanks!
Sorry, I'm new in Microchip (was aquired through Microsemi), and I know next to
nothing about the Micrel stuff.

Woojung: Can you comment on this, or try to direct this to someone who knows
something...

> >>>>>>> I think the datasheets are the source of the confusion. If the
> >>>>>>> datasheets for different chips list 0x0022155x as PHYID each, and
> >>>>>>> authors of support for additional chips don't check the existing
> >>>>>>> code, then happens what happened.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> However it's not a rare exception and not Microchip-specific that
> >>>>>>> sometimes vendors use the same PHYID for different chips.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From the vendor's POV it is even sensible to reuse the phy IDs iff the
> >>>>> chips are "compatible".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Assuming that the last nibble of the phy ID actually helps to
> >>>>> distinguish the different (not completely) compatible chips, we need
> >>>>> some more detailed information than available in the data sheets I have.
> >>>>> There is one person in the recipents of this mail with an
> >>>>> @microchip.com address (hint, hint!).
> >>>>
> >>>> can you give some input here or forward to a person who can?
> >>>
> >>> I forward this to the team.
> >>
> >> This thread still sits in my inbox waiting for some feedback. Did
> >> something happen on your side?
> > 
> > This is still true, didn't hear back from Yuiko Oshino for some time
> > now.
> > 
> > Best regards
> > Uwe
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Florian

-- 
/Allan