On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:26:23 +0200 Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote:
> On 08/11/2016 10:52 AM, Alban Bedel wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 14:32:14 +0200
> > Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/09/2016 02:14 PM, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 11:12 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>>> On 08/04/2016 11:07 AM, Alban Bedel wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:23:30 +0000
> >>>>> Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswi...@toradex.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 2016-08-03 at 15:51 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 08/03/2016 11:46 AM, Alban Bedel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:00:42 +0200
> >>>>>>>> Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 08/03/2016 07:32 AM, Alban Bedel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Commit 147271209a9d ("net: asix: fix operation without
> >>>>>>>>>> eeprom")
> >>>>>>>>>> added a special handling for ASIX 88772B that enable
> >>>>>>>>>> another
> >>>>>>>>>> type of header. This break the driver in DM mode as the
> >>>>>>>>>> extra
> >>>>>>>>>> handling
> >>>>>>>>>> needed in the receive path is missing.
> >>>>>>>>> So add the extra handling ?
> >>>>>>>> I can do that too, but I though u-boot preferred to avoid
> >>>>>>>> useless
> >>>>>>>> code.
> >>>>>>> Yes, if it is useless.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> However this new header mode is not required and only
> >>>>>>>>>> seems to
> >>>>>>>>>> increase the code complexity, so this patch revert this
> >>>>>>>>>> part of
> >>>>>>>>>> commit 147271209a9d.
> >>>>>>>>> Why is it not required ?
> >>>>>>>> It works fine without, since 2012. In fact this change is not
> >>>>>>>> even
> >>>>>>>> mentioned in the log of commit 147271209a9d, so I really
> >>>>>>>> don't know
> >>>>>>>> why
> >>>>>>>> it was added in the first place. As can be seen in the revert
> >>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>> does is adding 2 bytes to the USB packets that are then just
> >>>>>>>> skipped.
> >>>>>>>> Seems pretty useless to me.
> >>>>>>> I would like to get some feedback on this from Marcel, since he
> >>>>>>> added
> >>>>>>> this stuff.
> >>>>>> Yes, sorry. I just came back from vacation and started looking
> >>>>>> into it
> >>>>>> now. As far as I remember on our hardware without this Ethernet
> >>>>>> did not
> >>>>>> quite work reliably. This also means that with driver model so
> >>>>>> far it
> >>>>>> does not work for us which I fed back to Simon once but so far
> >>>>>> this has
> >>>>>> not been resolved. That fix came from some early U-Boot work done
> >>>>>> by
> >>>>>> Antmicro way back and I am missing some of the history.
> >>>>> Then I'll do a new patch that just fix the driver model receive
> >>>>> path.
> >>>> Hold on. Marcel, can you maybe test if removing this code has any
> >>>> impact
> >>>> on the behavior now ?
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for the delay. I tested Alban's patch now both on Toradex Colibri
> >>> T20 as well as T30 and its on-module ASIX USB-to-Ethernet chip actually
> >>> works perfectly aside from the occasional EHCI timed out on TD -
> >>> token=0x88008d80 Rx: failed to receive: -5 message which last I checked
> >>> with Simon is still unresolved but was already there long before any of
> >>> the driver model work started.
> >>>
> >>> Tested-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswi...@toradex.com>
> >>> Tested-on: Colibri T20/T30 on Colibri Evaluation Board
> >>>
> >
> > Will this be applied for the upcoming release?
>
> Yeah. Why the hurry though ?
I was just wondering because all the other patches I submitted have
been applied but this one still seems to be on hold.
Alban
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
