Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Jan 2022 07:32:13 +0100 | From | Martin Schiller <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |