The phy_id where I see the interrupt storm is :
0x01410cc2
Regards,
Gokul.
On 01/10/18, 3:56 PM, "GokulChand Casheekar (gcasheek)" <gcash...@cisco.com>
wrote:
Sorry - I was sick and out of office.
The phy_id reads 0x01410cc1.
Regards,
Gokul.
On 26/09/18, 9:05 PM, "Daniel Walker (danielwa)" <danie...@cisco.com> wrote:
On 09/25/2018 10:42 PM, Harini Katakam wrote:
> Hi,
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:00 PM Harini Katakam <hari...@xilinx.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:10 PM Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I hope this this thread isn't too old to bring back to life. So it
seems
>>>> that Harini found that m88e1111 did not need this errata, and Cisco
>>>> previously found that Harini's patch fixed m88e1112, we included it
>>>> internally for that reason
>>>>
>>>> Now I'm getting reports that this errata fixes issues we're seeing
on
>>>> m88e1111. We see an interrupt storm without the errata, despite
the errata
>>>> not being defined in the datasheet.
>>>
>>> Is everybody actually using interrupts? It could be in one system
>>> phylib is polling.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, we weren't using interrupts; we used phy poll.
>>
>> As I recall, the register and page combination was reserved and
>> the access seemed to fail.
>> It will be useful if we can the errata description or version
details.
>> I'll check if I can get any more information.
>
> One of the PHY parts used was "88E1111-B2-bab1i000"
I doubt I can find this level of detail .. We have many of these
machines in the field so they may have different part numbers.
I may have been given some incorrect details on the issue. I'm not
currently sure this errata code is related. I'll let you know when I
have more information.
Daniel
