On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:20:57AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 10:40:27AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 08:17:16PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > > On 04/10/2019 07:19 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > >
> > > >> According to the R-Car Gen3 Hardware Manual Rev 1.50 of Nov 30, 2018,
> > > >> the
> > > >> TX clock internal delay mode isn't supported on R-Car E3 (r8a77990) or
> > > >> D3
> > > >> (r8a77995). And by extension it is also not supported by RZ/G2E
> > > >> (r9a774c0).
> > > >>
> > > >> This matches all ES versions of the affected SoCs as it is
> > > >> not clear if this problem will be resolved in newer chips.
> > > >> This can be revisited, as necessary.
> > > >>
> > > >> This patch does not error-out if PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_ID or
> > > >> PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_TXID are used on SoCs where TX clock delay
> > > >> mode is not supported as there is a risk of introducing a regression
> > > >> when used in conjunction with older DT blobs present in the field.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Simon
> > > >
> > > > I think it should at least WARN_ON(). Such blobs are broken, even if
> > > > they do kind of work.
> > >
> > > Good idea! Simon, third time's a charm? :-)
> >
> > Sure, can do.
>
> How about something like this?
>
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c
> @@ -1980,8 +1987,14 @@ static void ravb_set_delay_mode(struct net_device
> *ndev)
> set |= APSR_DM_RDM;
>
> if (priv->phy_interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_ID ||
> - priv->phy_interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_TXID)
> - set |= APSR_DM_TDM;
> + priv->phy_interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_TXID) {
> + if (soc_device_match(ravb_delay_mode_quirk_match))
> + dev_warn(ndev->dev.parent,
> + "phy-mode %s requires TX clock internal delay
> mode which is not supported by this hardwre revision",
> + phy_modes(priv->phy_interface));
Hi Simon
The point of the warning is to tell users they should upgrade their DT
blob to one that is not broken. So i think the message should say
this. Also, we want users to notice this, which is why i said
WARN_ON(). Something big so it gets noticed.
Andrew
