[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next 2/9] dt-bindings: net: add backplane dt bindings
> What worries me is the situation which I've been working on, where
> we want access to the PCS PHYs, and we can't have the PCS PHYs
> represented as a phylib PHY because we may have a copper PHY behind
> the PCS PHY, and we want to be talking to the copper PHY in the
> first instance (the PCS PHY effectivel ybecomes a slave to the
> copper PHY.)

I guess we need to clarify what KR actually means. If we have a
backplane with a MAC on each end, i think modelling it as a PHY could

If however, we have a MAC connected to a backplane, and on the end of
the backplane is a traditional PHY, or an SFP cage, we have problems.
As your point out, we cannot have two PHYs in a chain for one MAC.

But i agree with Russell. We need a general solution of how we deal
with PCSs.


 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-27 16:46    [W:0.077 / U:3.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site