On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:16:17AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 06/01/2017 09:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > Checking 802.3-2015, in "22.2.4 Management functions", the first > > sentence requires all PHYs that respond to Clause 22 cycles to > > implement BMCR and BMSR. However, my statement about unimplemented > > registers returning zero seems to be a C45 thing, not a C22 thing, > > according to the C22 PICS and "45.2 MDIO Interface Registers" > > > > However, digging a bit further, "22.2.4.2.10 Auto-Negotiation complete" > > states that bit 5 shall be zero if aneg has not completed or if aneg is > > unimplemented. > > > > So how about we are more defensive than that and if we are presented > with a C45 PHY driver that does not have an aneg_done() function pointer > set we return an error/warning during driver registration?
We don't mark drivers as being C22 or C45, we rely on them matching the IDs and/or the probe function making that decision, so it's a tad difficult to make that decision at driver registration time. We could reject an attempt to probe a C45 phy with a driver that does not provide an aneg_done() pointer. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.
