From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:29:12 +0100 Subject: [PATCH RFC 24/30] net: fec: better implementation of iMX6 ERR006358 quirk In-Reply-To: <20140622084911.GD32514@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20140620121118.GR32514@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <316b383d2512440db51ea7c55992920d@BLUPR03MB373.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20140622081234.GB32514@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <56f5e44adf0b41a0bbf52c38b755afbd@BLUPR03MB373.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20140622084911.GD32514@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20140624102912.GM32514@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 09:49:11AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 08:38:49AM +0000, fugang.duan at freescale.com wrote: > > From: Russell King - ARM Linux Data: Sunday, June 22, 2014 4:13 PM > > >To: Duan Fugang-B38611 > > >Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; netdev at vger.kernel.org > > >Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 24/30] net: fec: better implementation of iMX6 > > >ERR006358 quirk > > > > > >On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 07:49:11AM +0000, fugang.duan at freescale.com wrote: > > >> From: Russell King Data: Friday, June 20, 2014 > > >> 8:14 PM > > >> >To: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > > >> >Cc: Duan Fugang-B38611; netdev at vger.kernel.org > > >> >Subject: [PATCH RFC 24/30] net: fec: better implementation of iMX6 > > >> >ERR006358 quirk > > >> > > > >> >+ > > >> >+ /* ERR006538: Keep the transmitter going */ > > >> >+ if (fep->dirty_tx != fep->cur_tx && > > >> >+ readl(fep->hwp + FEC_X_DES_ACTIVE) == 0) > > >> >+ writel(0, fep->hwp + FEC_X_DES_ACTIVE); > > >> > } > > >> > > ... > > >While I agree that we can read back to check whether the device indicates > > >that transmit is active, there's no point to the other tests. If there > > >are entries in the transmit ring but the transmitter indicates that it is > > >not active, then it is obvious that the bug has been hit. This is exactly > > >what my implementation above does. > > > > > The condition "fep->dirty_tx != fep->cur_tx" is not only limited for the errata. > > I mean only add extra trigger TDAR for the issue. > > Yes, I agree that test is wrong (that's what comes from shuffling the > patches... subsequent patches modify the indexing mechanism). It should > be: > > if (bdp != fep->cur_tx && > readl(fep->hwp + FEC_X_DES_ACTIVE) == 0) > writel(0, fep->hwp + FEC_X_DES_ACTIVE); > > Since "bdp" is the post-incremented dirty_tx pointer, which, when it is > equal to fep->cur_tx means that the ring is empty. Any further comments, or do I take the silence to mean that you agree with the above statement? I would like to get this settled to I can spin v2 of this set. Thanks. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly improving, and getting towards what was expected from it.