On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 16:42 -0500, Kim Phillips wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:03:56 +0200 > Lennert Buytenhek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:20:52PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote: > > > > > (note I'm coming from an embedded world here.) > > > > Please read this: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=116527863300952&w=2 > > Not sure how to interpret that. My point was I don't see as much PHY > variation in non-embedded applications. > > Kim
There may not be as much, but there definitely are still cases where there are devices that may have one of three or four different PHYs. I'm not in the embedded world, but while I know that there are differences, it isn't THAT different that something as potentially useful as PHY abstraction wouldn't be useful for regular PCI/USB network interfaces. Or are there too many cases where NIC x needs to do these fiddlings with PHY y, where as NIC z has to do different fiddlings with PHY y? Again, I don't have a lot of experience with Ethernet devices but in looking at a lot of the different driver code, it looks like they all fiddle with the PHYs in basically the same way, though some drivers do more, some less. Most likely due to lack of access to errata and such or issues just not cropping up that need to be fixed. -- David Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 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
