Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:48:51 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Parshuram Raju Thombare <pthombar@cadence.com>
Cc:     "nicolas.ferre@microchip.com" <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "f.fainelli@gmail.com" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "linux@armlinux.org.uk" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "hkallweit1@gmail.com" <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rafal Ciepiela <rafalc@cadence.com>,
        Piotr Sroka <piotrs@cadence.com>,
        Anil Joy Varughese <aniljoy@cadence.com>,
        Arthur Marris <arthurm@cadence.com>,
        Steven Ho <stevenh@cadence.com>,
        Milind Parab <mparab@cadence.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] net: macb: cover letter
Message-ID: <20190725134851.GF21952@lunn.ch>
References: <1562769391-31803-1-git-send-email-pthombar@cadence.com>
 <20190718151310.GE25635@lunn.ch>
 <CO2PR07MB246961335F7D401785377765C1C10@CO2PR07MB2469.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CO2PR07MB246961335F7D401785377765C1C10@CO2PR07MB2469.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 01:27:58PM +0000, Parshuram Raju Thombare wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> >One thing which was never clear is how you are testing the features you are
> >adding. Please could you describe your test setup and how each new feature
> >is tested using that hardware. I'm particularly interested in what C45 device
> >are you using? But i expect Russell would like to know more about SFP
> >modules you are using. Do you have any which require 1000BaseX,
> >2500BaseX, or provide copper 1G?
> 
> Sorry for late reply.
> Here is a little more information on our setup used for testing C45 patch with a view to
> try clarify a few points. 
> Regarding the MDIO communication channel that our controller supports - We have tested
> MDIO transfers through Clause 22, but none of our local PHY's support Clause 45 so our hardware
> team have created an example Clause 45 slave device for us to add support to the driver.

O.K.

Given Russells reply, i suggest you submit the MDIO Clause 45 patch,
and throw all the other patches away.

    Andrew