Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-178670-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 14:47:08 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Thomas Gessler <thomas.gessler@brueckmann-gmbh.de>
Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	MD Danish Anwar <danishanwar@ti.com>,
	Ravi Gunasekaran <r-gunasekaran@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: phy: dp83869: Add PHY ID for chip revision 3
Message-ID: <b2db4e61-8bc1-4076-a2b9-7b6a028461aa@lunn.ch>
References: <20240514122728.1490156-1-thomas.gessler@brueckmann-gmbh.de>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240514122728.1490156-1-thomas.gessler@brueckmann-gmbh.de>

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 02:27:27PM +0200, Thomas Gessler wrote:
> The recent silicon revision 3 of the DP83869 has a different PHY ID
> which has to be added to the driver in order for the PHY to be detected.
> There appear to be no documented differences between the revisions,
> although there are some discussions in the TI forum about different
> behavior for some registers.

Do you have the datasheet? What does it say about the ID in registers
2 and 3? Often the lower nibble is the revision. Meaning there can be
16 revisions of a PHY.

>  static struct phy_driver dp83869_driver[] = {
> -	DP83869_PHY_DRIVER(DP83869_PHY_ID, "TI DP83869"),
> +	DP83869_PHY_DRIVER(DP83869REV1_PHY_ID, "TI DP83869 Rev. 1"),
> +	DP83869_PHY_DRIVER(DP83869REV3_PHY_ID, "TI DP83869 Rev. 3"),
>  	DP83869_PHY_DRIVER(DP83561_PHY_ID, "TI DP83561-SP"),

If you look at DP83869_PHY_DRIVER() it uses:

#define DP83869_PHY_DRIVER(_id, _name)                          \
{                                                               \
        PHY_ID_MATCH_MODEL(_id),                                \

As the name suggests, it matches on the model. The revision is
ignored. A mask is applied to ignore the lower nibble. So this change
looks pointless.

>  static struct mdio_device_id __maybe_unused dp83869_tbl[] = {
> -	{ PHY_ID_MATCH_MODEL(DP83869_PHY_ID) },
> +	{ PHY_ID_MATCH_MODEL(DP83869REV1_PHY_ID) },
> +	{ PHY_ID_MATCH_MODEL(DP83869REV3_PHY_ID) },
>  	{ PHY_ID_MATCH_MODEL(DP83561_PHY_ID) },

And this has the same issue. If you want the match to include the
revision, you need to use PHY_ID_MATCH_EXACT(). If the different
revisions are supposed to be compatible, a single PHY_ID_MATCH_MODEL()
is sufficient.

    Andrew

---
pw-bot: cr