lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next 2/9] dt-bindings: net: add backplane dt bindings
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 04:44:48PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > 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
> work.
>
> 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.

What really worries me is that we may be driving the same hardware
with two different approaches/drivers for two different applications
which isn't going to work out very well in the long run.

--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 10.2Mbps down 587kbps up

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-27 18:35    [W:0.081 / U:1.984 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site