Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] Added BASE-T1 PHY support to PHY Subsystem
From: Christian Herber
Date: Fri Aug 16 2019 - 07:58:18 EST
On 15.08.2019 17:56, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> Caution: EXT Email
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 03:32:29PM +0000, Christian Herber wrote:
>> BASE-T1 is a category of Ethernet PHYs.
>> They use a single copper pair for transmission.
>> This patch add basic support for this category of PHYs.
>> It coveres the discovery of abilities and basic configuration.
>> It includes setting fixed speed and enabling auto-negotiation.
>> BASE-T1 devices should always Clause-45 managed.
>> Therefore, this patch extends phy-c45.c.
>> While for some functions like auto-neogtiation different registers are
>> used, the layout of these registers is the same for the used fields.
>> Thus, much of the logic of basic Clause-45 devices can be reused.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christian Herber <christian.herber@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/phy/phy-c45.c | 113 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> drivers/net/phy/phy-core.c | 4 +-
>> include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h | 2 +
>> include/uapi/linux/mdio.h | 21 +++++++
>> 4 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy-c45.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy-c45.c
>> index b9d4145781ca..9ff0b8c785de 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy-c45.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy-c45.c
>> @@ -8,13 +8,23 @@
>> #include <linux/mii.h>
>> #include <linux/phy.h>
>>
>> +#define IS_100BASET1(phy) (linkmode_test_bit( \
>> + ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_100baseT1_Full_BIT, \
>> + (phy)->supported))
>> +#define IS_1000BASET1(phy) (linkmode_test_bit( \
>> + ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_1000baseT1_Full_BIT, \
>> + (phy)->supported))
>
> Hi Christian
>
> We already have the flag phydev->is_gigabit_capable. Maybe add a flag
> phydev->is_t1_capable
>
>> +
>> +static u32 get_aneg_ctrl(struct phy_device *phydev);
>> +static u32 get_aneg_stat(struct phy_device *phydev);
>
> No forward declarations please. Put the code in the right order so
> they are not needed.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew
>
Hi Andrew,
thanks for feedback. The use of an additional flag is a good proposal.
I was hesitant to touch the phydev structure.
I will add this along with removing the forward declaration in v2.
Regards,
Christian