On 03/10/2016 22:57, Christian Lamparter wrote:
>> > why do you want to remove this check ? imho it does no harm
> The C-60 doesn't have a PHY at 3. This caused the check in ar8xxx_is_possible
> to fail and the ethernet ports on the C-60. Also, it doesn't look like the
> qca8k.c (DSA) driver chec
Hello,
On Monday, October 3, 2016 9:12:32 PM CEST John Crispin wrote:
> On 01/10/2016 18:33, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> > The commit "generic: ar8216: add sanity check to ar8216_probe"
> > (774da6c7a40320a320b28d71291c0e61fcf7bc8a) stated that PHY IDs
> > should be checked at address 0-4. Howeve
On 01/10/2016 18:33, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> The commit "generic: ar8216: add sanity check to ar8216_probe"
> (774da6c7a40320a320b28d71291c0e61fcf7bc8a) stated that PHY IDs
> should be checked at address 0-4. However, the PHY 4 was
> never check by the for loop... And I can't find any docume
The commit "generic: ar8216: add sanity check to ar8216_probe"
(774da6c7a40320a320b28d71291c0e61fcf7bc8a) stated that PHY IDs
should be checked at address 0-4. However, the PHY 4 was
never check by the for loop... And I can't find any documents
about why this check should be performed the way it is
