Hello Scott,
Thanks for your response. I'm trying to apply your patches to vanilla
2.6.22.1 kernel, but unfortunately some patches fail, namely:
patching file arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8272ads.dts
Hunk #1 FAILED at 10.
patching file arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile
Hunk #1 FAILED at 44.
patching file arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile
Hunk #1 FAILED at 48.
patching file arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig
Hunk #1 FAILED at 19.
and others, and also some patches appear to be already applied.
Maybe I'm patching the wrong kernel version?
thanks
Alex
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:23:05 +0300, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 05:22:40PM +0300, Alexandros Kostopoulos wrote:
>> 1) When mdiobus_register() called from mii-bitbang.c
>> (fs_enet_mdio_probe()
>> function) attemps to do a device_register for the mdio bus, it actually
>> registers the device with a bus_id in the form [0|1|...]:<phy_addr>,
>> that
>> is the first part a simple integer. This, of course, happens because
>> fs_enet_of_init() (fsl_soc.c) does a
>> platform_device_register_simple("fsl-bb-mdio", i, NULL, 0); with i
>> being
>> the first part of the bus, starting from 0. Unfortunately, when
>> fs_init_phy() (fs_enet_main.c) calls phy_connect() and therefore
>> phy_attach() (phy_device.c), the latter attempts to find the device in
>> the
>> mdio bus, but it searches using the bus_id registered in the net_device
>> struct, which is in the form of <resource address>:<phy_addr>, eg.
>> f0000000:0, and therefore it fails... I don't know if I am doing
>> something
>> wrong here, so any hint would be greatly appreciated.
>
> The code is broken. Try applying the set of 61 patches I posted a week
> or so ago (you'll need to apply them to Paul's tree from around the same
> time, not the current tree).
>
>> 2) Since there are two ethernet@<address> nodes in my device tree,
>> fs_of_enet_init() calls
>> platform_device_register_simple("fsl-bb-mdio",...)
>> twice, therefore creating two mdio busses, 0 and 1, each having the same
>> two devices. For example, if I have two PHYs with addresses 1 and 5, I
>> will get two mdio busses and 4 devices, 0:1, 0:5, 1:1 and 1:5. Well,
>> this
>> doesn't sound right to me, although I am not sure if this is a fatal
>> issue. Any comments?
>
> It's not right -- my patchset gets rid of all of this mess.
>
>> 3) Also, if I don't want to enter the phy interrupt in the device tree
>> (there is not one or I want to use PHY_POLL), what should I do? dtc
>> seems
>> to not allow -1 as a value in the reg property.
>
> Leave the property out altogether.
>
> -Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
