On 2/6/19 11:35 AM, Carlo Caione wrote:
> On 06/02/2019 03:31, Joe Hershberger wrote:
>
> /cut
>> Perhaps the default can be to attempt to auto select, but if it is
>> ambiguous, require the explicit specification. It could follow a
>> similar approach to the "md" command. We can add the ability
On 06/02/2019 03:31, Joe Hershberger wrote:
/cut
Perhaps the default can be to attempt to auto select, but if it is
ambiguous, require the explicit specification. It could follow a
similar approach to the "md" command. We can add the ability to add
".22" and ".45" to the mdio command to explici
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 7:37 PM Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>
> On 2/6/19 12:10 AM, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 9:20 AM Carlo Caione wrote:
> >>
> >> On 05/02/2019 00:15, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:39 PM Vladimir Oltean
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >> /cut
> >>
On 2/6/19 12:10 AM, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 9:20 AM Carlo Caione wrote:
>>
>> On 05/02/2019 00:15, Joe Hershberger wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:39 PM Vladimir Oltean
>>> wrote:
>>
>> /cut
Which brings me to my next point.
If we can't properly make the dis
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 9:20 AM Carlo Caione wrote:
>
> On 05/02/2019 00:15, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:39 PM Vladimir Oltean
> > wrote:
>
> /cut
> >> Which brings me to my next point.
> >> If we can't properly make the distinction between an indirect C22 MMD
> >> access
On 05/02/2019 00:15, Joe Hershberger wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:39 PM Vladimir Oltean wrote:
/cut
Which brings me to my next point.
If we can't properly make the distinction between an indirect C22 MMD
access and a proper C45 MMD access, and hence not keeping proper API
compatibility wit
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:39 PM Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>
> On 2/5/19 1:28 AM, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 7:12 AM Vladimir Oltean
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 25.01.2019 12:12, Carlo Caione wrote:
> >>> On 24/01/2019 20:48, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On 1/24/19 10:19 PM, Carl
On 2/5/19 1:28 AM, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 7:12 AM Vladimir Oltean
> wrote:
>>
>> On 25.01.2019 12:12, Carlo Caione wrote:
>>> On 24/01/2019 20:48, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
On 1/24/19 10:19 PM, Carlo Caione wrote:
> On 24/01/2019 20:12, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 7:12 AM Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>
> On 25.01.2019 12:12, Carlo Caione wrote:
> > On 24/01/2019 20:48, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >> On 1/24/19 10:19 PM, Carlo Caione wrote:
> >>> On 24/01/2019 20:12, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I can't completely answer that, TBH I
On 25.01.2019 12:12, Carlo Caione wrote:
> On 24/01/2019 20:48, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On 1/24/19 10:19 PM, Carlo Caione wrote:
>>> On 24/01/2019 20:12, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>
>> I can't completely answer that, TBH I don't even know who is supposed to
>> make that distinction.
>
> In th
On 24/01/2019 20:48, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
On 1/24/19 10:19 PM, Carlo Caione wrote:
On 24/01/2019 20:12, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
I can't completely answer that, TBH I don't even know who is supposed to
make that distinction.
In the kernel that distinction is made by the driver itself, henc
On 1/24/19 10:01 PM, Carlo Caione wrote:
> On 24/01/2019 19:56, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On 1/24/19 10:56 AM, Carlo Caione wrote:
>
>> It works for me, but I do have a question.
>> Is there any limitation preventing you to add this functionality via the
>> standard "mdio read x.y" instead of "mdi
On 1/24/19 10:08 PM, Carlo Caione wrote:
> On 24/01/2019 20:04, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On 1/24/19 10:01 PM, Carlo Caione wrote:
>>> On 24/01/2019 19:56, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
On 1/24/19 10:56 AM, Carlo Caione wrote:
>>
>> No, I mean instead of doing "mdio rmmd 3.1" to do "mdio read 3.1"
>>
On 1/24/19 10:19 PM, Carlo Caione wrote:
> On 24/01/2019 20:12, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>
>> I still think I haven't successfully made my point.
>> If "mdio read 3.1" is a C45-only thing, "mdio read 1" is a C22-only
>> thing, then why do you need a new command "mdio rmmd 3.1" to do C45
>> emulation
On 1/24/19 10:56 AM, Carlo Caione wrote:
> Two new parameters (rmmd and wmmd) are added to allow the `mdio` command
> to access the content of the MMD PHY registers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Carlo Caione
> Acked-by: Joe Hershberger
> ---
> cmd/mdio.c | 52 +---
On 24/01/2019 20:12, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
I still think I haven't successfully made my point.
If "mdio read 3.1" is a C45-only thing, "mdio read 1" is a C22-only
thing, then why do you need a new command "mdio rmmd 3.1" to do C45
emulation over C22? Is there any overlap I'm missing that mandat
On 24/01/2019 20:04, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
On 1/24/19 10:01 PM, Carlo Caione wrote:
On 24/01/2019 19:56, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
On 1/24/19 10:56 AM, Carlo Caione wrote:
No, I mean instead of doing "mdio rmmd 3.1" to do "mdio read 3.1"
(basically not define a new command).
Ooooh, I think yo
On 24/01/2019 19:56, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
On 1/24/19 10:56 AM, Carlo Caione wrote:
It works for me, but I do have a question.
Is there any limitation preventing you to add this functionality via the
standard "mdio read x.y" instead of "mdio rmmd x.y" if the PHY is known
to be C22?
You can
Two new parameters (rmmd and wmmd) are added to allow the `mdio` command
to access the content of the MMD PHY registers.
Signed-off-by: Carlo Caione
Acked-by: Joe Hershberger
---
cmd/mdio.c | 52 +---
1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 15 deletions
19 matches
Mail list logo
