On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:46:49PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> I mean do you see any problem with giving Linux knowledge of
>> the -slave name?
>
> I guess I don't really see the point, compared with just having a naked
> mdio node. The power management issue in this cas
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
I mean do you see any problem with giving Linux knowledge of
the -slave name?
I guess I don't really see the point, compared with just having a naked
mdio node. The power management issue in this case should be addressed
by ensuring that core0 never puts ether...@24000
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:35:11PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:31:29PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:23:44PM +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> I don't see any better solution, should I just l
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:31:29PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:23:44PM +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
I don't see any better solution, should I just leave the core1's
mdio node intact?
Ah. We also could change compatible ent
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:31:29PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:23:44PM +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>>> I don't see any better solution, should I just leave the core1's
>>> mdio node intact?
>>
>> Ah. We also could change compatible entry to "fsl
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:23:44PM +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
I don't see any better solution, should I just leave the core1's
mdio node intact?
Ah. We also could change compatible entry to "fsl,gianfar-slave".
This will prevent gianfar MAC driver to probe on core1.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:23:44PM +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:05:51PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> >> Currently it doesn't matter where the mdio nodes are placed, but with
> >> power management support (i.e. when sleep = <> properties will ta
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:05:51PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Hmm, would that imply that the mdio underneath it is disabled as well?
Technically, yes. In practice, MDIO and MAC drivers are probed
separately.
Currently, yes, but that may not always be the case.
I don't
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:05:51PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> Currently it doesn't matter where the mdio nodes are placed, but with
>> power management support (i.e. when sleep = <> properties will take
>> effect), mdio nodes placement will become important: mdio controlle
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
Currently it doesn't matter where the mdio nodes are placed, but with
power management support (i.e. when sleep = <> properties will take
effect), mdio nodes placement will become important: mdio controller
is a part of the ethernet block, so the mdio nodes should be placed
10 matches
Mail list logo
