From: Christian Herber <christian.herber@nxp.com>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/1] Add BASE-T1 PHY support
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 06:32:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM6PR0402MB379864B810F08D3698618B5F86A80@AM6PR0402MB3798.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 8c15b855-6947-9930-c3df-71a64fbff33b@gmail.com
On 16.08.2019 22:59, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 15.08.2019 17:32, Christian Herber wrote:
>> This patch adds basic support for BASE-T1 PHYs in the framework.
>> BASE-T1 PHYs main area of application are automotive and industrial.
>> BASE-T1 is standardized in IEEE 802.3, namely
>> - IEEE 802.3bw: 100BASE-T1
>> - IEEE 802.3bp 1000BASE-T1
>> - IEEE 802.3cg: 10BASE-T1L and 10BASE-T1S
>>
>> There are no products which contain BASE-T1 and consumer type PHYs like
>> 1000BASE-T. However, devices exist which combine 100BASE-T1 and 1000BASE-T1
>> PHYs with auto-negotiation.
>
> Is this meant in a way that *currently* there are no PHY's combining Base-T1
> with normal Base-T modes? Or are there reasons why this isn't possible in
> general? I'm asking because we have PHY's combining copper and fiber, and e.g.
> the mentioned Aquantia PHY that combines NBase-T with 1000Base-T2.
>
>>
>> The intention of this patch is to make use of the existing Clause 45 functions.
>> BASE-T1 adds some additional registers e.g. for aneg control, which follow a
>> similiar register layout as the existing devices. The bits which are used in
>> BASE-T1 specific registers are the same as in basic registers, thus the
>> existing functions can be resued, with get_aneg_ctrl() selecting the correct
>> register address.
>>
> If Base-T1 can't be combined with other modes then at a first glance I see no
> benefit in defining new registers e.g. for aneg control, and the standard ones
> are unused. Why not using the standard registers? Can you shed some light on that?
>
> Are the new registers internally shadowed to the standard location?
> That's something I've seen on other PHY's: one register appears in different
> places in different devices.
>
>> The current version of ethtool has been prepared for 100/1000BASE-T1 and works
>> with this patch. 10BASE-T1 needs to be added to ethtool.
>>
>> Christian Herber (1):
>> Added BASE-T1 PHY support to PHY Subsystem
>>
>> 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(-)
>>
>
> Heiner
>
Hi Heiner,
I do not think the Aquantia part you are describing is publicly
documented, so i cannot comment on that part.
There are multiple reasons why e.g. xBASE-T1 plus 1000BASE-T is
unlikely. First, the is no use-case known to me, where this would be
required. Second, there is no way that you can do an auto-negotiation
between the two, as these both have their own auto-neg defined (Clause
28/73 vs. Clause 98). Thirdly, if you would ever have a product with
both, I believe it would just include two full PHYs and a way to select
which flavor you want. Of course, this is the theory until proven
otherwise, but to me it is sufficient to use a single driver.
The registers are different in the fields they include. It is just that
the flags which are used by the Linux driver, like restarting auto-neg,
are at the same position.
Christian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-19 6:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-15 15:32 [PATCH net-next 0/1] Add BASE-T1 PHY support Christian Herber
2019-08-15 15:32 ` [PATCH net-next 1/1] Added BASE-T1 PHY support to PHY Subsystem Christian Herber
2019-08-15 15:56 ` Andrew Lunn
2019-08-15 16:34 ` Heiner Kallweit
2019-08-16 12:05 ` [EXT] " Christian Herber
2019-08-16 11:56 ` Christian Herber
2019-08-16 21:13 ` Heiner Kallweit
2019-08-19 6:40 ` Christian Herber
2019-08-15 15:43 ` [PATCH net-next 0/1] Add BASE-T1 PHY support Andrew Lunn
2019-08-16 20:59 ` Heiner Kallweit
2019-08-19 6:32 ` Christian Herber [this message]
2019-08-19 19:07 ` Heiner Kallweit
2019-08-20 13:36 ` [EXT] " Christian Herber
2019-08-21 17:09 ` Heiner Kallweit
2019-08-21 18:57 ` Andrew Lunn
2019-08-22 7:18 ` Christian Herber
2019-08-24 15:03 ` Heiner Kallweit
2019-08-26 7:57 ` Christian Herber
2019-10-16 8:37 ` Lucas Stach
2019-10-16 13:19 Christian Herber
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=AM6PR0402MB379864B810F08D3698618B5F86A80@AM6PR0402MB3798.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com \
--to=christian.herber@nxp.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).