Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:27:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Ambrisko <ambrisko@ambrisko.com> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: ambrisko@FreeBSD.org, net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/mii mii.c Message-ID: <200208162027.g7GKRjE95057@ambrisko.com> In-Reply-To: <200208161619.g7GGJl2x074161@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Polstra writes: | In article <200208072218.g77MIXPA082326@freefall.freebsd.org>, | Doug Ambrisko <ambrisko@FreeBSD.org> wrote: | > ambrisko 2002/08/07 15:18:33 PDT | > | > Modified files: | > sys/dev/mii mii.c | > Log: | > Only attach one PHY device to a controller. NetBSD has similar code. | > The D-Link DFE-580 card will otherwise show 2 miibuses for each controller | > and therefore 2 ukphy's. | | [cc to -net] | | This change seems wrong to me. Since the MII bus is a bus and since | phys have addresses on the bus, I've always assumed that the intent | was to be able to have more than one phy on an MII bus. While I don't | know of any NICs that actually use that feature, I hate to see it get | disabled without careful consideration. Although I don't disagree that you have a potential solution. I question whether there isn't a technical issue if you have multiple PHY's attached to a NIC. In the current stuff how would you ifconfig the other PHYs? If you can't access the other PHYs then why attach them. Did you look at the NetBSD code? When I read it they avoid probing more then one PHY in the MII code. Since we got this code from them shouldn't we follow suit? Did I mis-understand their code? Thanks, Doug A. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200208162027.g7GKRjE95057>