On 12/19/05, John W. Linville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 03:35:04PM +0100, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 12:20:32PM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -633,7 +643,7 @@ static int __devinit sundance_probe1 (st
> > >
> > > np->phys[0] = 1; /* Default setting */
> > > np->mii_preamble_required++;
> > > - for (phy = 1; phy <= 32 && phy_idx < MII_CNT; phy++) {
> > > + for (phy = 0; phy < 32 && phy_idx < MII_CNT; phy++) {
> > > int mii_status = mdio_read(dev, phy, MII_BMSR);
> > > int phyx = phy & 0x1f;
> > > if (mii_status != 0xffff && mii_status != 0x0000) {
> >
> > (Your PHY is at address 0?) Can you add some debug here to see what
> > happens in both cases (f.e. print the returned MII_BMSR values for
> > both 'start at 0' and 'start at 1')? Presumably there's something
> > about starting at 1 that gets your hardware confused, I'd like to know
> > what that is..
>
> How about if you just ditch that hunk? The "int phyx = phy & 0x1f"
> line serves the purpose of making sure that phy addr 0 is still
> accessed, just last instead of first. Apparently this is some oral
> wisdom passed-down from Don Becker relating to some phys not dealing
> well w/ address 0 being accessed first.
humm, interesting explanation, I'll add a comment and make phy 0
actually be read, as it is not being right now as we have:
int mii_status = mdio_read(dev, phy, MII_BMSR);
int phyx = phy & 0x1f;
When we should have instead:
int phyx = phy & 0x1f;
int mii_status = mdio_read(dev, phyx, MII_BMSR);
so that when phy, in the end of the (phy = 1; phy <= 32...) loop gets
to 32 phyx gets to 0, i.e. we were reading at 32, when the intended
read was for 0.
Lemme see if this works...
- Arnaldo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
