On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Peter Lebbing wrote: > On 12/01/11 13:19, David Goodenough wrote: > > The odd thing is that the current code (before your patch) detects my > > ADM6996FC. It does not do much with it, but it detects it. > > That is very odd indeed. I did not change the detection. Are you sure it is > my patch that changes the behaviour, and not some other change? No, my point was that the code always has detected my FC, your code does not change that. > > For instance, with backfire 10.03, the MAC driver used by the D-Link > DSL-G624T, cpmac.c, would not detect the switch chip at all. In backfire > SVN, this has changed; it is now detected correctly. So I basically have > it the other way round if I don't patch anything but go from stable to > backfire SVN. > > > Given that they are do different, perhaps your driver should be named > > as the adm6996m.c rather than just adm6996.c, and then we can have > > an adm6996fl.c for the F, FC and L versions. > > I agree. But the detection code of adm6996.c (named as such) looks for Chip > Identification registers that *are* mentioned in the datasheet for the M > model, and very much *are not* in the datasheet for the F and L models. > And I didn't write the detection nor name the file. > > Are you sure it is adm6996.c that detects your FC? It seems so odd to me, > looking at the datasheets. Perhaps you could add some debug print > statements to adm6996.c in the chip detection code to see what it reads > and writes from the chip. Well adm6996.c is the only code that I could find that puts out a syslog entry saying it has found an ADM6996 PHY.
I am in the middle of another project at the moment, so it will be a few days before I can do any experiments, but I will try over the weekend. David > > Peter. _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
