On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 09:51 +0000, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > +static struct phy_driver bcm5482_driver = {
> > + .phy_id = 0x0143bcb0,
> > + .phy_id_mask = 0xfffffff0,
>
> Please check formatting above and also I am a bit curious as to why the
> ID is so different from the other ones -- the number is meant to be based
> on the OUI assigned to the manufacturer. Otherwise your addition is fine.
I'll re-submit with the formatting fixed.
I can't figure out why the ID is so different from the others, but I did
double-check it and test it on real hardware.
For what it's worth, I've found a lot of inconsistency in these ID
values. For example, the chips with ID1 == 0x0020 seem to use the wrong
set of OUI bits (22:7 instead of 21:6), while others (BCM5221) with ID1
== 0x0040 do it properly conforming to the IEEE standard.
I can't figure out how they got the ID values for the BCM5482. If you
extract the OUI from 0x0143bcb0, you get 0x0050ef (which the *BSD guys
list as an alternate "mangled" Broadcom OUI). The BCM5787 and BCM5755
also seem to share this same ID formula with the BCM5482.
- Nate Case <[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
