Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] net: phy: micrel: remove suspend/resume | From | Christophe Leroy <> | Date | Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:06:41 +0200 |
| |
Le 26/08/2016 à 06:35, Florian Fainelli a écrit : > Le 24/08/2016 à 07:14, Christophe Leroy a écrit : >> >> >> Le 23/08/2016 à 21:03, Florian Fainelli a écrit : >>> +others, >>> >>> On 08/23/2016 04:13 AM, Christophe Leroy wrote: >>>> In ERRATA DS80000700A dated 05 May 2016, Microship recommends to >>>> not use software power down mode on KSZ8041 family. >>> >>> s/Microship/Microchip/ >>> >>>> They say they have no plan to fix this ERRATA in future releases. >>> >>> The errata applies to specific revisions, is this revision present in >>> the lower 4 bits of the MII_PHYSID2 register such that it could be used >>> to key the disabling of the power down? >> >> It doesn't seem clear to me how this could/should be handled. >> >> According to the documentation, all variants have the same ID 0x0022151x >> with revision x. A3 has ID 0x00221512 and A4 has 0x00221513. >> According to the doc, the KSZ8041RNLI should has same ID. But according >> to micrel driver, it has ID 0x00221537. And the buggy revision of that >> one is rev A. Is it what the 7 means ? > > Humm the revision is typically stored on 4 bits, so 0x7 could mean > anything here, it really depends if how they are allocating their revision. > > 0b0000 -> A0 > 0b0001 -> A1 > ... > 0b0110 -> A6 > 0b0111 -> A7? > > Who knows. > >> >> The ERRATA applies to KSZ8041NL revision A4 and to KSZ8041NL-AM revision >> A3. My understanding it that both variants have ID 0x0022151x, ie >> KSZ8041NL-AM revision A3 has ID 0x00221512 and KSZ8041NL revision A4 has >> ID 0x00221513. But KSZ8041NL revision A3 also has ID 0x00221512 and the >> ERRATA doesn't apply to it. >> >> So what can be done really ? Only apply the fix to ID 0x00221513 (which >> is what I need as I have KSZ8041NL revision A4 on my boards) ? Or apply >> it for all KSZ8041 and KSZ8041RNLI to be on the safe side ? > > I would apply it to just the KSZ8041NL rev. A4 for now, ideally we would > want to track down the users of the KSZ8041RNLI and see if somebody > could test that, realistically, we won't be able to, so I would err on > the side of caution at the expense of slightly increased power > consumption for that particular PHY and have a broader match of all the > KSZ8041RNLI potentially affected. > > Does that make sense? >
What about the KSZ8041NL-AM revision A3, which has the same PHY ID as the KSZ8041NL revision A3 ? Shouldn't we also have a broader match on this one in order to cover all cases and also be on the side of caution ?
Christophe
| |