* RE: Re: signal quality and cable diagnostic
@ 2020-05-11 19:32 Christian Herber
2020-05-11 19:54 ` Andrew Lunn
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Christian Herber @ 2020-05-11 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Lunn, Oleksij Rempel
Cc: David S. Miller, Florian Fainelli, Heiner Kallweit,
Jakub Kicinski, Jonathan Corbet, Michal Kubecek, David Jander,
kernel, linux-kernel, netdev, Russell King, mkl, Marek Vasut
On May 11, 2020 4:33:53 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
>
> Are the classes part of the Open Alliance specification? Ideally we
> want to report something standardized, not something proprietary to
> NXP.
>
> Andrew
Hi Andrew,
Such mechanisms are standardized and supported by pretty much all devices in the market. The Open Alliance specification is publicly available here: http://www.opensig.org/download/document/218/Advanced_PHY_features_for_automotive_Ethernet_V1.0.pdf
As the specification is newer than the 100BASE-T1 spec, do not expect first generation devices to follow the register definitions as per Open Alliance. But for future devices, also registers should be same across different vendors.
Christian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: signal quality and cable diagnostic
2020-05-11 19:32 Re: signal quality and cable diagnostic Christian Herber
@ 2020-05-11 19:54 ` Andrew Lunn
2020-05-12 5:13 ` Oleksij Rempel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Lunn @ 2020-05-11 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Herber
Cc: Oleksij Rempel, David S. Miller, Florian Fainelli,
Heiner Kallweit, Jakub Kicinski, Jonathan Corbet, Michal Kubecek,
David Jander, kernel, linux-kernel, netdev, Russell King, mkl,
Marek Vasut
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 07:32:05PM +0000, Christian Herber wrote:
> On May 11, 2020 4:33:53 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
> >
> > Are the classes part of the Open Alliance specification? Ideally we
> > want to report something standardized, not something proprietary to
> > NXP.
> >
> > Andrew
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Such mechanisms are standardized and supported by pretty much all
> devices in the market. The Open Alliance specification is publicly
> available here:
> http://www.opensig.org/download/document/218/Advanced_PHY_features_for_automotive_Ethernet_V1.0.pdf
>
> As the specification is newer than the 100BASE-T1 spec, do not
> expect first generation devices to follow the register definitions
> as per Open Alliance. But for future devices, also registers should
> be same across different vendors.
Hi Christian
Since we are talking about a kernel/user API definition here, i don't
care about the exact registers. What is important is the
naming/representation of the information. It seems like NXP uses Class
A - Class H, where as the standard calls them SQI=0 - SQI=7. So we
should name the KAPI based on the standard, not what NXP calls them.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: signal quality and cable diagnostic
2020-05-11 19:54 ` Andrew Lunn
@ 2020-05-12 5:13 ` Oleksij Rempel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Oleksij Rempel @ 2020-05-12 5:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Lunn
Cc: Christian Herber, Michal Kubecek, Marek Vasut, Florian Fainelli,
Jonathan Corbet, netdev, linux-kernel, Russell King, mkl, kernel,
David Jander, Jakub Kicinski, David S. Miller, Heiner Kallweit
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:54:35PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 07:32:05PM +0000, Christian Herber wrote:
> > On May 11, 2020 4:33:53 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > > Are the classes part of the Open Alliance specification? Ideally we
> > > want to report something standardized, not something proprietary to
> > > NXP.
> > >
> > > Andrew
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
>
> > Such mechanisms are standardized and supported by pretty much all
> > devices in the market. The Open Alliance specification is publicly
> > available here:
> > http://www.opensig.org/download/document/218/Advanced_PHY_features_for_automotive_Ethernet_V1.0.pdf
> >
> > As the specification is newer than the 100BASE-T1 spec, do not
> > expect first generation devices to follow the register definitions
> > as per Open Alliance. But for future devices, also registers should
> > be same across different vendors.
>
> Hi Christian
>
> Since we are talking about a kernel/user API definition here, i don't
> care about the exact registers. What is important is the
> naming/representation of the information. It seems like NXP uses Class
> A - Class H, where as the standard calls them SQI=0 - SQI=7. So we
> should name the KAPI based on the standard, not what NXP calls them.
OK, sounds good for me.
Regards,
Oleksij
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-05-12 5:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-05-11 19:32 Re: signal quality and cable diagnostic Christian Herber
2020-05-11 19:54 ` Andrew Lunn
2020-05-12 5:13 ` Oleksij Rempel
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.