[PATCH 3/4] net/fec: set phy_speed to the optimal frequency 2.5 MHz

[troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com (Troy Kisky)]

On 9/20/2011 1:05 PM, Troy Kisky wrote:
> On 9/19/2011 7:57 PM, Shawn Guo wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 03:39:30PM -0700, Troy Kisky wrote:
>>> On 9/18/2011 4:54 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
>>>> With the unnecessary 1 bit left-shift on fep->phy_speed during the
>>>> calculation, the phy_speed always runs at the half frequency of the
>>>> optimal one 2.5 MHz.
>>>>
>>>> The patch removes that 1 bit left-shift to get the optimal phy_speed.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo<shawn.guo@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/net/fec.c |    2 +-
>>>>   1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/fec.c b/drivers/net/fec.c
>>>> index 5ef0e34..04206e4 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/fec.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/fec.c
>>>> @@ -1007,7 +1007,7 @@ static int fec_enet_mii_init(struct 
>>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>>>       /*
>>>>        * Set MII speed to 2.5 MHz (= clk_get_rate() / 2 * phy_speed)
>>>>        */
>>>> -    fep->phy_speed = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_get_rate(fep->clk), 
>>>> 5000000)<<   1;
>>>> +    fep->phy_speed = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_get_rate(fep->clk), 5000000);
>>>>       writel(fep->phy_speed, fep->hwp + FEC_MII_SPEED);
>>>>
>>>>       fep->mii_bus = mdiobus_alloc();
>>> Do you need to round up to an even value? Is the hardware
>>> documentation wrong?
>> The round up is something existed, and the patch does not touch that
>> part.
> That's not what I was referring to. Previously, phy_speed was always 
> even because of the shift.
> The MX53 manual says this field starts at bit 1, and bit 0 is unused. 
> Therefore, maybe the
> correct change would be
>
> fep->phy_speed = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_get_rate(fep->clk), 2500000)<<   1;

oops, I meant
fep->phy_speed = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_get_rate(fep->clk), 2500000 * 4) <<   1;
> So, the question is, does this field start at bit 0 (your version is 
> correct)
> or bit 1? In other words, how did the hardware manual get it wrong? 
> Wrong starting
> bit, or divide by 2 not needed. Please document the mistake in the code.
>
>
>>
>>> Does this need a quirk? What boards has this been verified to fix?
>>>
>> I tested this on i.mx28, i.mx53 and i.mx6q.  Do you see problem on
>> your platform?
>>
> I have not tested yet, but will sometime this week.
>
>
>