Hi Stefan, On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ben, > > On Saturday 30 August 2008, Ben Warren wrote: >> > +#if !defined(CONFIG_PHY_LESS) >> > +#define CONFIG_PHY_LESS 0xFFFFFFFF /* PHY-less mode */ >> > +#define CONFIG_PHY_LESS_SPEED 1000 >> > +#define CONFIG_PHY_LESS_DUPLEX FULL >> > +#endif >> > + >> >> Sorry, but this is not scalable. There are many real-world examples >> of boards where one controller is connected to a PHY, and another has >> a FIXED link to a switch or something else. This driver is already an >> unwieldy mess and adding this sort of thing only makes it worse. If >> you want to add fixed-link capabilities, please re-direct your efforts >> towards a more generic, scalable solution. > > Yes, this was my first fear too. But take a look at the commet Victor added in > his 2nd patch version (I asked specifically for this comment to learn how > this should work): > > +/* > + * Some boards do not have a PHY for each ethernet port. > + * For example on Arches board (2 CPU system) eth0 does not have > + * a PHY, both CPU's are wired directly together (AC coupled) > + * using SGMII0. In these cases set the appropriate > + * CONFIG_PHY_ADDR equal to CONFIG_PHY_LESS to detect that > + * the specified ethernet port does not have a PHY. > + */ > +#if !defined(CONFIG_PHY_LESS) > +#define CONFIG_PHY_LESS 0xFFFFFFFF /* PHY-less mode */ > +#define CONFIG_PHY_LESS_SPEED 1000 > +#define CONFIG_PHY_LESS_DUPLEX FULL > +#endif > > So it's a per ethernet-interface selectable define of the CONFIG_PHY_ADDR and > it kind of scales. It's not perfect but at least it's a way to support boards > with interfaces connected to PHY's and other without PHY connection. > > What do you think? Is this acceptable? Or what other solution would be > acceptable? > I guess this falls into the category of one of those things that's probably OK for now but is ripe for being gutted at a later date. The right solution is to find a way to pass parametric information on a per-controller basis, but we're a long way from that now.
If you're OK with the understanding that this is temporary, let's pull it in. I don't want to stand in the way of being able to support a major eval board. regards, Ben _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
