On 4/30/20 12:41 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> ECD. The registers looks exactly like the one from the Marvell PHYs, >> which makes me wonder if both have the same building block or if one >> imitated the registers of the other. There are subtle differences >> like one bit in the broadcom PHY is "break link" and is self-clearing, >> while the bit on the Marvell PHY is described as "perform diagnostics >> on link break". > > Should we be sharing code between the two drivers?
Yes, I am amazed how how identical they are, nearly on a bit level identical, the coincidence is uncanny. The expansion registers are also 0x10 - 0x15 just in the reverse order, you know, so as to make it not too obvious this looks about the same ;) I wonder if we managed to find something here. > >> What do you mean by calibrate it? > > Some of the Marvell documentation talks about calibrating for losses > on the PCB. Run a diagnostics with no cable plugged in, and get the > cable length to the 'fault'. This gives you the distance to the RJ45 > socket. You should then subtract that from all subsequent results. > But since this is board design specific, i decided to ignore it. I > suppose it could be stuffed into a DT property, but i got the feeling > it is not worth it, given the measurement granularity of 80cm. OK, accuracy is different here, they are said to be +/- 5m accurate for cable faults and +/- 10m accurate for good cables. -- Florian
