From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Boyer Subject: Re: Porting the ibm_newemac driver to use phylib (and other PHY/MAC questions) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:29:24 -0400 Message-ID: <625fc13d0904200529l152b8d75g33c3f940de1b2920@mail.gmail.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, netdev , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" To: Kyle Moffett Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppe-linuxppc-embedded-2=m.gmane.org@ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppe-linuxppc-embedded-2=m.gmane.org@ozlabs.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Kyle Moffett wrote: > Hello, > > I'm currently fiddling with a custom embedded prototype board using > the ibm_newemac driver with some currently-unsupported PHYs. =A0Those > PHYs *are* supported by phylib, but the emac driver seems to have its > own PHY layer cribbed from the sungem driver. =A0I'm curious if there's > some particular reason it hasn't been ported (aside from "nobody has > bothered yet"). IIRC, Ben had some issues with how phylib and the EMAC would need to interact. Not sure if he has those written down somewhere or not. (CC'd). > I've temporarily hacked a PHY driver together for the moment, but it > would be much easier for us to maintain and update our board if the > PHY drivers were integrated. =A0As a result I'm also interested in how > complicated it might be to port the driver (and possibly sungem as > well) over to phylib, if that is indeed feasible. =A0Also, if I end up > going that route, are there others available with other hardware > variants who would be willing to test my patches on their boards? I have a large variety of boards that I can test with since the entire 4xx line relies on this driver for on-board network. josh