On 4/13/2021 3:57 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
Ok, we can agree that there will not be a perfect naming. Would it be a
possibility to rename the existing TJA11xx driver to TJA1100-1-2 or is that
unwanted?
It is generally a bad idea. It makes back porting fixing harder if the
file changes name.
If n
On 4/13/2021 3:30 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 08:56:30AM +0200, Christian Herber wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 4/12/2021 6:52 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
So what you are say is, you don't care if the IP is completely
different, it all goes in one driver. So lets put this driver
Hi Andrew,
On 4/12/2021 6:52 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
So what you are say is, you don't care if the IP is completely
different, it all goes in one driver. So lets put this driver into
nxp-tja11xx.c. And then we avoid all the naming issues.
Andrew
As this seems to be a key question, let
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:58:55PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:55:20AM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:51:59AM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > I'm also a bit worried about hardcoding the 0-7 value range. While I
> > understand that it's de
Hi Andrew,
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 03:39:00PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 02:09:59PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>> ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_RESULT_CODE_ACTIVE_PARTNER - the link partner is active.
>>
>> The TJA1102 is able to detect it if partner link is master.
>>
> mast
On Tue, May 14, 2020 at 08:28:00AM +, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 07:13:30AM +0000, Christian Herber wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:22:01AM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> >
> > > So I think we should pass raw SQI value to user space, at
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:22:01AM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> So I think we should pass raw SQI value to user space, at least in the
> first implementation.
> What do you think about this?
Hi Oleksij,
I had a check about the background of this SQI thing. The table you reference
with concre
On May 11, 2020 4:33:53 PM Andrew Lunn 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 device
