On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 07:32:05PM +0000, Christian Herber wrote: > On May 11, 2020 4:33:53 PM Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> wrote: > > > > Are the classes part of the Open Alliance specification? Ideally we > > want to report something standardized, not something proprietary to > > NXP. > > > > Andrew > > Hi Andrew, >
> Such mechanisms are standardized and supported by pretty much all > devices in the market. The Open Alliance specification is publicly > available here: > http://www.opensig.org/download/document/218/Advanced_PHY_features_for_automotive_Ethernet_V1.0.pdf > > As the specification is newer than the 100BASE-T1 spec, do not > expect first generation devices to follow the register definitions > as per Open Alliance. But for future devices, also registers should > be same across different vendors. Hi Christian Since we are talking about a kernel/user API definition here, i don't care about the exact registers. What is important is the naming/representation of the information. It seems like NXP uses Class A - Class H, where as the standard calls them SQI=0 - SQI=7. So we should name the KAPI based on the standard, not what NXP calls them. Andrew
