From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> Date: 2012-09-21 02:53:05
The KSZ8021 PHY was previously caught by KS8051, which is not correct.
This PHY needs additional setup if it is strapped for address 0. In such
case an reserved bit must be written in the 0x16, "Operation Mode Strap
Override" register. According to the KS8051 datasheet, that bit means
"PHY Address 0 in non-broadcast" and it indeed behaves as such on KSZ8021.
The issue where the ethernet controller (Freescale FEC) did not communicate
with network is fixed by writing this bit as 1.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Cc: David J. Choi <redacted>
Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <redacted>
Cc: Fabio Estevam <redacted>
Cc: Shawn Guo <redacted>
---
drivers/net/phy/micrel.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/linux/micrel_phy.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
V2: Also add entry into micrel_tbl
There is no such part as KS8001, KS8041 or KS8051. There are only
KSZ8001, KSZ8041 and KSZ8051. Rename these parts as such to match
the Micrel naming.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Cc: David J. Choi <redacted>
Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <redacted>
Cc: Linux ARM kernel <redacted>
Cc: Fabio Estevam <redacted>
Cc: Shawn Guo <redacted>
---
arch/arm/mach-mxs/mach-mxs.c | 2 +-
drivers/net/phy/micrel.c | 18 +++++++++---------
include/linux/micrel_phy.h | 6 +++---
3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
V2: Rebase this on adjusted 1/3 patch
NOTE: This affect one board in Linux ARM, but the change is
very minor it should not cause merge conflict, so if
this could go through net, that would be for the best.
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> Date: 2012-09-21 02:53:07
The license header was missing in micrel_phy.h . This patch adds
one.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Cc: David J. Choi <redacted>
Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <redacted>
Cc: Fabio Estevam <redacted>
Cc: Shawn Guo <redacted>
---
include/linux/micrel_phy.h | 12 ++++++++++++
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
NOTE: I'd like to have ACK on this from the original author of
the file, as this now says it's GPL2+.
This is not indented properly. The goal is not to exclusively use
TAB characters to indent code until it sort-of looks fine.
Rather, the goal is to properly line up function arguments with
the first column after the openning parenthesis on the previous
line. Using TAB and SPACE characters, as needed.
This is similarly not styled properly.
Besies being indented imporperly on the second line, the final "|"
character should be at the end of the first line, rather than
start the second line.
Resubmit this entire patch series, not just this one patch, once
you've made these corrections.
Thanks.
This is not indented properly. The goal is not to exclusively use
TAB characters to indent code until it sort-of looks fine.
The goal was to avoid checkpatch trouble.
Rather, the goal is to properly line up function arguments with
the first column after the openning parenthesis on the previous
line. Using TAB and SPACE characters, as needed.
This is copy-pasted from other entry. I'd hate to reformat the whole file.
Besies being indented imporperly on the second line, the final "|"
character should be at the end of the first line, rather than
start the second line.
DTTO here.
Resubmit this entire patch series, not just this one patch, once
you've made these corrections.
Thanks.
Rather, the goal is to properly line up function arguments with
the first column after the openning parenthesis on the previous
line. Using TAB and SPACE characters, as needed.
Rather, the goal is to properly line up function arguments with
the first column after the openning parenthesis on the previous
line. Using TAB and SPACE characters, as needed.
I read it, and if it were relevant to this discussion I would
have quoted it.
Can you please just fix up your patches exactly how I have asked you
to so that I can get these bug fixes into the 'net' tree?
This is completely rediculous, nobody else pushes back when I make
simple coding style correction requests for their changes like you
are.
You're behavior is self defeating, it's causing your work to not be
useful and to not propagate to the very place where people can benefit
from it the most.
I read it, and if it were relevant to this discussion I would
have quoted it.
Can you please just fix up your patches exactly how I have asked you
to so that I can get these bug fixes into the 'net' tree?
Sure, as you wish.
This is completely rediculous, nobody else pushes back when I make
simple coding style correction requests for their changes like you
are.
You know, youth and all ... I was under the impression the patches shall be
checkpatch clean. But you got me there quite well, something must be wrong with
my precommit hook.
You're behavior is self defeating, it's causing your work to not be
useful and to not propagate to the very place where people can benefit
from it the most.
Hey, this hurt. Anyway, about the checkpatch cleanup of the file, will that be
welcome (afterwards I fix the patchset and repost)? Now that you pointed out
there's more trouble in the file that is.
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
You know, youth and all ... I was under the impression the patches shall be
checkpatch clean. But you got me there quite well, something must be wrong with
my precommit hook.
checkpatch is not a panacea, and it is in particular not an automaton
that one uses without using any human judgement at all.
In particular, checkpatch does not enforce the comment style we use in
the networking code nor several other conventions that we use which
are slightly different from the rest of the tree.
Therefore strick checkpatch conformance is never appropriate.
Anyway, about the checkpatch cleanup of the file, will that be
welcome (afterwards I fix the patchset and repost)?
See above, strict checkpatch cleanups, especially those done in
a completely automaton style with zero human judgment involved,
are not welcome.
You know, youth and all ... I was under the impression the patches shall
be checkpatch clean. But you got me there quite well, something must be
wrong with my precommit hook.
checkpatch is not a panacea, and it is in particular not an automaton
that one uses without using any human judgement at all.
In particular, checkpatch does not enforce the comment style we use in
the networking code nor several other conventions that we use which
are slightly different from the rest of the tree.
Therefore strick checkpatch conformance is never appropriate.
Understood.
quoted
Anyway, about the checkpatch cleanup of the file, will that be
welcome (afterwards I fix the patchset and repost)?
See above, strict checkpatch cleanups, especially those done in
a completely automaton style with zero human judgment involved,
are not welcome.
I meant the .features field ... it seems that the | at the following line
appears in other PHY drivers as well though. Lets leave it at that anyway.
Best regards,
Marek Vasut