On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday 20 October 2011 17:45:33 Andy Fleming wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thursday 20 October 2011 09:55:34 Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> On Oct 20, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >> > On Thursday 20 October 2011 06:34:33 Kumar Nath, Chandan wrote: >> >> >> This patch was acked on September 21, but in latest code base I could >> >> >> not find this patch. Is there anything left which I need to take care >> >> >> in my patch. If so, please let me know so that this can be picked up. >> >> > >> >> > i don't merge net patches. wolfgang does. i don't think there's >> >> > anything left for you to do. >> >> >> >> I think this breaks 10g support. I'm pretty sure Andy made the data >> >> type a short for a reason. >> > >> > the data type in mainline is 8bits (char). Chandan is fixing it to be >> > 16bits (short). if 10g breaks with a short, that sounds like a bug in >> > the 10g code we should figure out + fix. Linux is using a short just >> > fine afaict. >> >> Actually, there's some confusion, here. The function being updated by >> this patch isn't part of phylib. It's part of the legacy miiphy code. >> I don't think there's any reason to update it. If you are writing a >> new driver with 10G support (which would, admittedly, require a 16-bit >> register argument), then don't use miiphy_register. Call >> mdio_register, and register proper phylib support. The mii command >> isn't capable of dealing with Clause-45 MDIO transactions, anyway (no >> devad) > > so the patch is correct, but we don't want to merge it because we don't want > to encourage the old miiphy interface ? and leaving it broken forces people > to migrate to the new phy layer ?
I don't think the patch is correct or incorrect. It attempts to update the miiphy_* API to support larger register offsets. I'm suggesting that we shouldn't change the legacy API to support new features. There's no way to specify via miiphy_write that you want to write to a register with a 16-bit register offset, because there's no way to specify which device to write. So I'm not saying we shouldn't apply this patch. I'm questioning why it was written in a hope that we can discourage new use of the old API. I'm also not convinced the patch helps anything. Andy _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
