From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 180DDC4727C for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 12:37:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D71C9208B6 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 12:37:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732185AbgJAMh3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Oct 2020 08:37:29 -0400 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:38050 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732031AbgJAMhE (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Oct 2020 08:37:04 -0400 Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1kNxpJ-00H40x-OX; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 14:36:49 +0200 Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 14:36:49 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Chris Packham Cc: Russell King , "vivien.didelot@gmail.com" , Florian Fainelli , netdev , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: dsa: mv88e6xxx: serdes link without phy Message-ID: <20201001123649.GC4050473@lunn.ch> References: <72e8e25a-db0d-275f-e80e-0b74bf112832@alliedtelesis.co.nz> <20201001012410.GA4050473@lunn.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Can you run 1000Base-X over these links? > With some reading "1000base-x" does seem the right thing to say here. > It's even what is reflected in the CMODE field for those ports. One more thing you might need is managed = "in-band-status"; > > If you can, it is probably > > worth chatting to Russell King about using inband-signalling, and what > > is needed to make it work without having back to back SFPs. If i > > remember correctly, Russell has said not much is actually needed. > > That'd be ideal. The sticking point seems to be allowing it to have no PHY. I think there is more to it than that. This is new ground to some extent. Andrew