From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 218A6E00862; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:19:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from smtp.webfaction.com (mail6.webfaction.com [74.55.86.74]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99391E007C1 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (c-68-38-40-177.hsd1.nj.comcast.net [68.38.40.177]) by smtp.webfaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D66242261718; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 20:19:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <543D8552.8020701@mindchasers.com> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:19:30 -0400 From: Bob Cochran User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "zhenhua.luo@freescale.com" , "meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org" References: <541A54FD.7000004@mindchasers.com> <5426D94D.4040801@mindchasers.com> In-Reply-To: Cc: Scott Wood , Heinz Wrobel Subject: Re: Should all T4240 errata be applied to T1040? X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 20:19:44 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/14/2014 03:55 AM, zhenhua.luo@freescale.com wrote: > Bob, > > Thanks for your comments. > > FSL SDK developer will fix the issue in QorIQ SDK 1.7(Dec-2014). If that's the case, I'll set a goal to post my own patches to meta-fsl-ppc, but I would like to clean up the hangs I experience during network testing first (not sure when I'll have all this worked out). Can we please use the Yocto project / FSL Community to test a beta of SDK1.7? SDK1.6 on T1040RDB certainly would have benefited from additional testing. > > > Best Regards, > > Zhenhua > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bob Cochran [mailto:yocto@mindchasers.com] >> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 11:36 PM >> To: Luo Zhenhua-B19537; meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org >> Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; Wrobel Heinz-R39252 >> Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] Should all T4240 errata be applied to T1040? >> >> On 09/19/2014 06:04 AM, zhenhua.luo@freescale.com wrote: >>> Hi Bob, >>> >>> Thanks for the great finding. >>> >>> Defining the CONFIG_FMAN_T4240 for T1 is inaccurate and potentially >> dangerous for the correct function. The manual explicitly states for TNTSKS that >> exceeding the max supported values is not permitted, but it doesn't actually >> state that the reset value is the maximum permissible value. >>> >>> As for the correct way to define things, we probably need to share >> integrations across common SoCs per, e.g., Table A-5 in the T1040 DPAA RM to >> make SW match our docs properly. A configuration "T4240" is likely a bad one >> anyway if we should name it effectively "FMAN_V3H_384KiB" vs. >> "FMAN_V3H_512KiB" for B4860 rev 2. So it is good to change "FMAN_V3L" for >> T1 to match the documentation and part behavior. >>> >>> Also the correct way is to stop configuring such things at compile time to >> avoid separate kernel build for every FMan revision. >> >> >> Zhenhua, >> >> I believe a similar issue exists with the dts files. >> >> fsl/qoriq-fman3-0.dtsi defines two O/H ports that don't exist on the T1040. >> >> After setting CONFIG_FMAN_V3L, FM_MAX_NUM_OF_OH_PORTS was >> defined as 4 in T4240/dpaa_integration_ext.h. This matches what I see in the >> T1040 SoC RM. >> >> However, during boot, I see errors reported on the command line from the FM >> module: >> >> Freescale FM module (Sep 26 2014:14:25:29), FMD API version 21.1.0 >> cpu1/1: ! MAJOR FM Error [CPU01, >> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/src/wrapper/lnxwrp_fm_port.c:272 >> ReadFmPortDevTreeNode]: Invalid Value; >> cpu1/1: of_get_property(/soc@ffe000000/fman@400000/port@86000, >> cell-index) failedcpu1/1: >> >> fsl-fman-port: probe of ffe486000.port failed with error -5 >> cpu1/1: ! MAJOR FM Error [CPU01, >> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/src/wrapper/lnxwrp_fm_port.c:272 >> ReadFmPortDevTreeNode]: Invalid Value; >> cpu1/1: of_get_property(/soc@ffe000000/fman@400000/port@87000, >> cell-index) failedcpu1/1: >> >> If I remove the extra O/H ports in my dts file, the errors go away. >> >> So, if we follow your suggestion, I believe we should add a qoriq-fman3l-0.dtsi >> file that excludes the non-existent O/H ports. >> >> However, I need some feedback because my T1040 DPAA Reference Manual >> Table A-47 states that the number of O/H ports are SoC specific, so maybe >> some V3L devices actually have these extra O/H ports??? >> >> And fsl/t1040si-post.dtsi also specifies the extra two O/H ports, but that's a >> straight forward patch. >> >> Finally, who will do these patches for proper V3H/V3L support (me or FSL)? If I >> do it, I'm just going to work through the issues with the >> T1040 / V3L (I can't address B4860 rev 2 - don't have the specs & don't want >> them). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bob >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Zhenhua >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: meta-freescale-bounces@yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-freescale- >>>> bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Bob Cochran >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:44 AM >>>> To: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org >>>> Subject: [meta-freescale] Should all T4240 errata be applied to T1040? >>>> >>>> I find that during initialization of my T1040rdb-64b using the kernel >>>> built with meta-fsl-ppc master, the FMBM_CFG2.TNTASKS field (total >>>> number of BMI >>>> tasks) is being overwritten to 0x7b (the reset value is documented as >>>> 0x3b in the T1040 reference manual). >>>> >>>> I believe this is being overwritten due to sharing the errata >>>> definitions with the T4240, but this particular erratum may not apply >>>> to the T1040 and may cause undesirable side effects. >>>> >>>> The T4240 uses DPAA FMAN_v3H, and the T1040 uses DPAA FMAN_v3L. >>>> >>>> >>>> Here is my understanding of how this erratum (A005127) is being >>>> applied to the >>>> T1040: >>>> >>>> 1) t1040_64bit_smp_defconfig defines CONFIG_FMAN_T4240 >>>> >>>> 2) By defining CONFIG_FMAN_T4240, >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/ncsw_config.mk adds >>>> -I$(FMAN)/inc/integrations/T4240 to EXTRA_CFLAGS. >>>> >>>> 3) dpaa_integration_ext.h is included throughout the fman source >>>> files from >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/inc/integrations/T4240 >>>> >>>> 4) This defines FM_WRONG_RESET_VALUES_ERRATA_FMAN_A005127, but >> it is >>>> my understanding that this erratum does not apply to the T1040. >>>> >>>> 5) This results in FMBM_CFG2.TNTASKS being overwritten with a value >>>> approximately twice its default value, and my concern is that the >>>> FMAN_V3L does not have the resources to support this many tasks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In general, I'm also wondering whether the other errata in the >>>> integration file is appropriate for the T1040 and whether the >>>> FMAN_v3L devices should have their own integration tree. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> meta-freescale mailing list >>>> meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org >>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale >>> > >