From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6CDC433E1 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 15:43:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9993820663 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 15:43:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=armlinux.org.uk header.i=@armlinux.org.uk header.b="it8u4q1+" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729818AbgEZPno (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 May 2020 11:43:44 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58082 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727898AbgEZPno (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 May 2020 11:43:44 -0400 Received: from pandora.armlinux.org.uk (pandora.armlinux.org.uk [IPv6:2001:4d48:ad52:3201:214:fdff:fe10:1be6]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F28FBC03E96D for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 08:43:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=armlinux.org.uk; s=pandora-2019; h=Sender:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=SwBYViNLad+qTHLi6nmDJs7dBCNBfBeFaiRnP428y6A=; b=it8u4q1+HuUKfjEOHwD5fHG9H OqXIBvauKeYwn1d3l8uS8JR4ZsFNgvwputlZOSW7wEdcvaqGIkcALidimlxlbywB9yEMu7MWFqnLe P4IzHUkqEaNxRsYqFTu1J6yBkjMGHs1sWMpsjAM5oY9qjlg2FjRHRpUzMlpKHONMdexEh0Cjj3OyF 5FWSAX5+SkZYTMoKVdKskoKdB0lC294WZdXnEt2XtYJn6sLY6rjHdcG8jmOrbsgwSQvLiZ60rBXM8 Nn8Iv2kMWRcPCeWPFbkjeYCaPhsLrZ1UAXx/riktPdRsGEUgRMhzYXRHMFstjpoLFH4lZeEpoztmM 3WmJQzHgA==; Received: from shell.armlinux.org.uk ([2001:4d48:ad52:3201:5054:ff:fe00:4ec]:45336) by pandora.armlinux.org.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jdbjs-0008DD-UR; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:43:37 +0100 Received: from linux by shell.armlinux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jdbjr-0005VI-Jz; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:43:35 +0100 Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 16:43:35 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin To: Andrew Lunn , Heiner Kallweit Cc: Florian Fainelli , Jeremy Linton , netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/7] Clause 45 PHY probing cleanups Message-ID: <20200526154335.GB1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk> References: <20200526142948.GY1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200526142948.GY1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 03:29:48PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > Hi, > > In response to the patch set that Jeremy posted, this is my proposal > to expand our Clause 45 PHY probing. > > I've taken a slightly different approach, with the view to avoiding > as much behavioural change as possible. The biggest difference is > to do with "devices_in_package" - we were using it for two different > purposes, which are now separated. > > This is not against net-next nor net trees, but against my own private > tree, but I'm posting it to serve as an illustration of what I think > should be done - I knocked this up this morning. > > The only potential regression that I'm expecting is with 88x3310 PHYs > of the later revision, which have the clause 22 registers implemented. > I haven't yet checked whether they set bit 0, but if they do, the > various decision points that we have based on that bit could adversely > affect this PHY - it needs testing, which I'll do when I dig out the > appropriate hardware. Probably also needs the 2110 PHYs checked as > well. Tested on the later revision of the 88x3310 PHY with some additional prints: orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: scanning prt 0 mmd 1... orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: prt 0: dip=c000009a orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: prt 0 mmd 1: id 0x002b09ab orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: prt 0 mmd 3: id 0x002b09ab orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: prt 0 mmd 4: id 0x01410dab orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: prt 0 mmd 7: id 0x002b09ab orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: prt 0 mmd 30: prs=0 orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: prt 0 mmd 31: prs=0 orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: scanning prt 8 mmd 1... orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: prt 8: dip=c000009a orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: prt 8 mmd 1: id 0x002b09ab orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: prt 8 mmd 3: id 0x002b09ab orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: prt 8 mmd 4: id 0x01410dab orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: prt 8 mmd 7: id 0x002b09ab orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: prt 8 mmd 30: prs=0 orion-mdio f212a600.mdio: prt 8 mmd 31: prs=0 which is what is expected from this PHY. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC for 0.8m (est. 1762m) line in suburbia: sync at 13.1Mbps down 424kbps up