lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v6] net: phy: intel-xway: Add RGMII internal delay configuration
On 2022-01-12 19:25, Tim Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 5:46 AM Russell King (Oracle)
> <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 11:12:33AM -0800, Tim Harvey wrote:
>> > I added a debug statement in xway_gphy_rgmii_init and here you can see
>> > it gets called 'before' the link comes up from the NIC on a board that
>> > has a cable plugged in at power-on. I can tell from testing that the
>> > rx_delay/tx_delay set in xway_gphy_rgmii_init does not actually take
>> > effect unless I then bring the link down and up again manually as you
>> > indicate.
>> >
>> > # dmesg | egrep "xway|nicvf"
>> > [ 6.855971] xway_gphy_rgmii_init mdio_thunder MDI_MIICTRL:0xb100
>> > rx_delay=1500 tx_delay=500
>> > [ 6.999651] nicvf, ver 1.0
>> > [ 7.002478] nicvf 0000:05:00.1: Adding to iommu group 7
>> > [ 7.007785] nicvf 0000:05:00.1: enabling device (0004 -> 0006)
>> > [ 7.053189] nicvf 0000:05:00.2: Adding to iommu group 8
>> > [ 7.058511] nicvf 0000:05:00.2: enabling device (0004 -> 0006)
>> > [ 11.044616] nicvf 0000:05:00.2 eth1: Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full duplex
>>
>> Does the kernel message about the link coming up reflect what is going
>> on physically with the link though?
>>
>> If a network interface is down, it's entirely possible that the link
>> is
>> already established at the hardware level, buit the "Link is Up"
>> message
>> gets reported when the network interface is later brought up. So,
>> debugging this by looking at the kernel messages is unreliable.
>>
>
> Russell,
>
> You are correct... the link doesn't come up at that point its already
> linked. So we need to force a reset or an auto negotiation reset after
> modifying the delays.
>
> Tim

Setting BMCR_ANRESTART would work, but only if BMCR_ANENABLE is also or
already set. Otherwise BMCR_ANRESTART has no effect (see the note in the
datasheet).

This is the reason why I came up with the idea of BMCR_PDOWN.

Personally I would have no problem with setting BMCR_ANRESTART and
BMCR_ANENABLE, but it would possibly change the existing configuration
if (e.g. by the bootloader) aneg should be disabled.

Martin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-13 07:33    [W:0.152 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site