Hello, On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 08:55:07PM +0000, yuiko.osh...@microchip.com wrote: > >On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 09:22:43AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > >> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 11:07:45PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > >> > On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 10:55:29PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > >> > > On 09.05.2019 22:29, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > >> > > > I have a board here that has a KSZ8051MLL (datasheet: > >> > > > http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/ksz8051mll.pdf, > >> > > > phyid: > >> > > > 0x0022155x) assembled. The actual phyid is 0x00221556. > >> > > > >> > > I think the datasheets are the source of the confusion. If the > >> > > datasheets for different chips list 0x0022155x as PHYID each, and > >> > > authors of support for additional chips don't check the existing > >> > > code, then happens what happened. > >> > > > >> > > However it's not a rare exception and not Microchip-specific that > >> > > sometimes vendors use the same PHYID for different chips. > >> > >> From the vendor's POV it is even sensible to reuse the phy IDs iff the > >> chips are "compatible". > >> > >> Assuming that the last nibble of the phy ID actually helps to > >> distinguish the different (not completely) compatible chips, we need > >> some more detailed information than available in the data sheets I have. > >> There is one person in the recipents of this mail with an > >> @microchip.com address (hint, hint!). > > > >can you give some input here or forward to a person who can? > > I forward this to the team.
This thread still sits in my inbox waiting for some feedback. Did something happen on your side? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
