netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] Patch to Abstract Ethernet PHY support (using driver model)

To: Jörn Engel <joern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Patch to Abstract Ethernet PHY support (using driver model)
From: Andy Fleming <afleming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:00:20 -0600
Cc: Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Embedded PPC Linux list <linuxppc-embedded@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20050114145518.GA21418@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <FC6D9B81-5514-11D9-8D51-000393C30512@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <A3A281FF-5525-11D9-80ED-000393C30512@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050106070245.GA6539@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <61A37C72-659C-11D9-8D70-000393C30512@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050113212152.GA16041@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050113215808.GA15124@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050114010016.GA16635@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050114145518.GA21418@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
In fact, we use different switch chips connected to PPC4xx directly.
In this situation, in my NAPI IBM EMAC driver I just have special
"PHY-less" case which is trivial "fixed settings" one. And all this
PHY lib is completely unneeded bloat.

Wrt. the proposed PHY lib, I agree.  Didn't even bother to look at the
code, it's mere size said enough.

Hmm... Before I spend too much time revising based on previous comments ebs made, is there a general consensus that the code is much too large? I know there's a lot in there, but the goal is to simplify PHY management for all ethernet drivers, new and old, and thus reduce code size, overall. Is this code heading in the right direction? Does it do too much? Too little?


Andy Fleming
Open Source Team
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>