| Message ID | 20170119214934.27442-2-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
Hi Gregory, Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> writes: > From: Romain Perier <romain.perier@free-electrons.com> > > Some Marvell ethernet switches have internal ethernet transceivers with > hardcoded phy addresses. These addresses can be greater than the number > of ports or its value might be different than the associated port number. > This is for example the case for MV88E6341 that has 6 ports and internal > Port 1 to Port4 PHYs mapped at SMI addresses from 0x11 to 0x14. Isn't there an hardware table used to map the PHY addresses on such chip? > This commits fixes the issue by removing the condition in MDIO callbacks. > > Signed-off-by: Romain Perier <romain.perier@free-electrons.com> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> > Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> The patch is anyway still valid: Reviewed-by: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> Thanks, Vivien
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 05:13:12PM -0500, Vivien Didelot wrote: > Hi Gregory, > > Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> writes: > > > From: Romain Perier <romain.perier@free-electrons.com> > > > > Some Marvell ethernet switches have internal ethernet transceivers with > > hardcoded phy addresses. These addresses can be greater than the number > > of ports or its value might be different than the associated port number. > > This is for example the case for MV88E6341 that has 6 ports and internal > > Port 1 to Port4 PHYs mapped at SMI addresses from 0x11 to 0x14. > > Isn't there an hardware table used to map the PHY addresses on such chip? The 6390 has something like this. But if we can avoid it, lets keep it KISS. Andrew
Hi Andrew, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> writes: >> Isn't there an hardware table used to map the PHY addresses on such chip? > > The 6390 has something like this. But if we can avoid it, lets keep it > KISS. I definitely agree. I was just curious about this new chip. Thanks, Vivien
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c index 987b2dbbd35a..d1960ae0a618 100644 --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c @@ -2882,9 +2882,6 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_mdio_read(struct mii_bus *bus, int phy, int reg) u16 val; int err; - if (phy >= mv88e6xxx_num_ports(chip)) - return 0xffff; - mutex_lock(&chip->reg_lock); err = mv88e6xxx_phy_read(chip, phy, reg, &val); mutex_unlock(&chip->reg_lock); @@ -2897,9 +2894,6 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_mdio_write(struct mii_bus *bus, int phy, int reg, u16 val) struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = bus->priv; int err; - if (phy >= mv88e6xxx_num_ports(chip)) - return 0xffff; - mutex_lock(&chip->reg_lock); err = mv88e6xxx_phy_write(chip, phy, reg, val); mutex_unlock(&chip->reg_lock);