Vitaly Bordug wrote: > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:03:04 -0600 Scott Wood wrote: >>> These phy nodes have basically no information in them. PHY nodes >>> are optional - >> If they are truly optional, then several Linux drivers (including >> ucc_geth, which this board uses) are broken, as they'll error out >> if there's no phy-handle (gianfar is even worse -- it looks like >> the fsl_soc code will crash in that case). But what do you propose >> they do in the absence of a phy-handle? Hope that probing only >> finds one phy? > > up-to-date fixed phy patch solves it in gianfar and fs_enet case. it > is implied, that either there *are* phy nodes (and the code will look > up their reg and phandle) or there should be fixed-link property in > NIC node, that describes to what link stuff is really connected.
There's a difference between the phy *node* being optional and phy *usage* being optional. :-) -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
