[PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be configurable

[PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be configurable

[Joe Hamman]

Allow the address of the Ten Bit Interface (TBI) to be changed in the
event of a conflict with another device.

Signed-off by: Joe Hamman <joe.hamman@embeddedspecialties.com>
---

Please ignore the last patch - I missed a cut & paste error on the range
that my testing didn't catch.
---

diff --git a/drivers/net/Kconfig b/drivers/net/Kconfig
index 81ef81c..b4813d9 100644
--- a/drivers/net/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/net/Kconfig
@@ -2276,6 +2276,14 @@ config GFAR_NAPI
 	bool "NAPI Support"
 	depends on GIANFAR
 
+config GFAR_TBIPA_VALUE
+	hex "Ten Bit Interface Port Address Value"
+	depends on GIANFAR
+	range 0 0x1f
+	default "0x1f"
+	help
+	  Select an address that does not conflict with other addresses on the board.
+
 config UCC_GETH
 	tristate "Freescale QE Gigabit Ethernet"
 	depends on QUICC_ENGINE
diff --git a/drivers/net/gianfar.c b/drivers/net/gianfar.c
index f926905..91ae0d3 100644
--- a/drivers/net/gianfar.c
+++ b/drivers/net/gianfar.c
@@ -490,15 +490,15 @@ static void gfar_configure_serdes(struct net_device *dev)
 	/* Initialise TBI i/f to communicate with serdes (lynx phy) */
 
 	/* Single clk mode, mii mode off(for aerdes communication) */
-	gfar_local_mdio_write(regs, TBIPA_VALUE, MII_TBICON, TBICON_CLK_SELECT);
+	gfar_local_mdio_write(regs, CONFIG_GFAR_TBIPA_VALUE, MII_TBICON, TBICON_CLK_SELECT);
 
 	/* Supported pause and full-duplex, no half-duplex */
-	gfar_local_mdio_write(regs, TBIPA_VALUE, MII_ADVERTISE,
+	gfar_local_mdio_write(regs, CONFIG_GFAR_TBIPA_VALUE, MII_ADVERTISE,
 			ADVERTISE_1000XFULL | ADVERTISE_1000XPAUSE |
 			ADVERTISE_1000XPSE_ASYM);
 
 	/* ANEG enable, restart ANEG, full duplex mode, speed[1] set */
-	gfar_local_mdio_write(regs, TBIPA_VALUE, MII_BMCR, BMCR_ANENABLE |
+	gfar_local_mdio_write(regs, CONFIG_GFAR_TBIPA_VALUE, MII_BMCR, BMCR_ANENABLE |
 			BMCR_ANRESTART | BMCR_FULLDPLX | BMCR_SPEED1000);
 }
 
@@ -547,7 +547,7 @@ static void init_registers(struct net_device *dev)
 	gfar_write(&priv->regs->minflr, MINFLR_INIT_SETTINGS);
 
 	/* Assign the TBI an address which won't conflict with the PHYs */
-	gfar_write(&priv->regs->tbipa, TBIPA_VALUE);
+	gfar_write(&priv->regs->tbipa, CONFIG_GFAR_TBIPA_VALUE);
 }
 
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/gianfar.h b/drivers/net/gianfar.h
index d8e779c..0fd1c02 100644
--- a/drivers/net/gianfar.h
+++ b/drivers/net/gianfar.h
@@ -131,7 +131,6 @@ extern const char gfar_driver_version[];
 #define DEFAULT_RXCOUNT	16
 #define DEFAULT_RXTIME	4
 
-#define TBIPA_VALUE		0x1f
 #define MIIMCFG_INIT_VALUE	0x00000007
 #define MIIMCFG_RESET           0x80000000
 #define MIIMIND_BUSY            0x00000001

Re: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be configurable

[Kumar Gala]

On Aug 13, 2007, at 5:37 PM, Joe Hamman wrote:

> Allow the address of the Ten Bit Interface (TBI) to be changed in the
> event of a conflict with another device.
>
> Signed-off by: Joe Hamman <joe.hamman@embeddedspecialties.com>
> ---
>
> Please ignore the last patch - I missed a cut & paste error on the  
> range
> that my testing didn't catch.

I think we'd rather this came from the device tree.

- k

RE: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be configurable

[Joe Hamman]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kumar Gala [mailto:galak@kernel.crashing.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:10 PM
> To: joe.hamman@embeddedspecialties.com
> Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be
> configurable
> 
> 
> On Aug 13, 2007, at 5:37 PM, Joe Hamman wrote:
> 
> > Allow the address of the Ten Bit Interface (TBI) to be changed in the
> > event of a conflict with another device.
> >
> > Signed-off by: Joe Hamman <joe.hamman@embeddedspecialties.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Please ignore the last patch - I missed a cut & paste error on the
> > range
> > that my testing didn't catch.
> 
> I think we'd rather this came from the device tree.
> 
Duh, that makes sense ;-)

Has there been any discussion yet?  Maybe something like this:

		mdio@24520 {
			#address-cells = <1>;
			#size-cells = <0>;
			device_type = "mdio";
			compatible = "gianfar";
			reg = <24520 20>;
			phy0: ethernet-phy@0 {
				interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
				interrupts = <a 1>;
				reg = <0>;
				device_type = "ethernet-phy";
			};
			phy1: ethernet-phy@1 {
				interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
				interrupts = <a 1>;
				reg = <1>;
				device_type = "ethernet-phy";
			};
			phy2: ethernet-phy@2 {
				interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
				interrupts = <a 1>;
				reg = <2>;
				device_type = "ethernet-phy";
			};
			phy3: ethernet-phy@3 {
				interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
				interrupts = <a 1>;
				reg = <3>;
				device_type = "ethernet-phy";
			};
			tbi:  ethernet-tbi@1f {
				reg = <1f>;
				device_type = "ethernet-tbi";
			};
		};

Thanks,
Joe

RE: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be configurable

[Joe Hamman]

Hi Kumar,

Or do you think it should be added to gianfar_mdio_data?  Easier, but does
it belong there?

Thanks,
Joe


> -----Original Message-----
> From: linuxppc-embedded-
> bounces+joe.hamman=embeddedspecialties.com@ozlabs.org [mailto:linuxppc-
> embedded-bounces+joe.hamman=embeddedspecialties.com@ozlabs.org] On Behalf
> Of Joe Hamman
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:30 PM
> To: 'Kumar Gala'
> Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be
> configurable
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kumar Gala [mailto:galak@kernel.crashing.org]
> > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:10 PM
> > To: joe.hamman@embeddedspecialties.com
> > Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be
> > configurable
> >
> >
> > On Aug 13, 2007, at 5:37 PM, Joe Hamman wrote:
> >
> > > Allow the address of the Ten Bit Interface (TBI) to be changed in the
> > > event of a conflict with another device.
> > >
> > > Signed-off by: Joe Hamman <joe.hamman@embeddedspecialties.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Please ignore the last patch - I missed a cut & paste error on the
> > > range
> > > that my testing didn't catch.
> >
> > I think we'd rather this came from the device tree.
> >
> Duh, that makes sense ;-)
> 
> Has there been any discussion yet?  Maybe something like this:
> 
> 		mdio@24520 {
> 			#address-cells = <1>;
> 			#size-cells = <0>;
> 			device_type = "mdio";
> 			compatible = "gianfar";
> 			reg = <24520 20>;
> 			phy0: ethernet-phy@0 {
> 				interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
> 				interrupts = <a 1>;
> 				reg = <0>;
> 				device_type = "ethernet-phy";
> 			};
> 			phy1: ethernet-phy@1 {
> 				interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
> 				interrupts = <a 1>;
> 				reg = <1>;
> 				device_type = "ethernet-phy";
> 			};
> 			phy2: ethernet-phy@2 {
> 				interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
> 				interrupts = <a 1>;
> 				reg = <2>;
> 				device_type = "ethernet-phy";
> 			};
> 			phy3: ethernet-phy@3 {
> 				interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
> 				interrupts = <a 1>;
> 				reg = <3>;
> 				device_type = "ethernet-phy";
> 			};
> 			tbi:  ethernet-tbi@1f {
> 				reg = <1f>;
> 				device_type = "ethernet-tbi";
> 			};
> 		};
> 
> Thanks,
> Joe
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
> Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded

Re: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be configurable

[Andy Fleming]

On Aug 13, 2007, at 22:29, Joe Hamman wrote:

>>
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2007, at 5:37 PM, Joe Hamman wrote:
>>
>>> Allow the address of the Ten Bit Interface (TBI) to be changed in  
>>> the
>>> event of a conflict with another device.
>>>
>>> Signed-off by: Joe Hamman <joe.hamman@embeddedspecialties.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Please ignore the last patch - I missed a cut & paste error on the
>>> range
>>> that my testing didn't catch.
>>
>> I think we'd rather this came from the device tree.
>>
> Duh, that makes sense ;-)
>
> Has there been any discussion yet?  Maybe something like this:
>
> 		mdio@24520 {
>

...

> 			phy3: ethernet-phy@3 {
> 				interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
> 				interrupts = <a 1>;
> 				reg = <3>;
> 				device_type = "ethernet-phy";
> 			};
> 			tbi:  ethernet-tbi@1f {
> 				reg = <1f>;
> 				device_type = "ethernet-tbi";
> 			};

It's actually a per-tsec property.  There's not one tbi, there's one  
per TSEC.  The one on TSEC 0 is special in that it can interfere with  
PHYs on the MDIO bus.

So I would suggest making it a property of the ethernet node:

ethernet@24000 {
...
tbipa = <1f>;
...
}

etc

Andy

Re: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be configurable

[Scott Wood]

Andy Fleming wrote:
> It's actually a per-tsec property.  There's not one tbi, there's one  
> per TSEC.  The one on TSEC 0 is special in that it can interfere with  
> PHYs on the MDIO bus.
> 
> So I would suggest making it a property of the ethernet node:
> 
> ethernet@24000 {
> ...
> tbipa = <1f>;
> ...
> }

"tbipa" isn't likely to pass the Segher test. :-)

If the TBI address is in PHY-space, then it should go in the MDIO bus. 
For the second TSEC, create a second MDIO bus node.

-Scott

RE: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be configurable

[Joe Hamman]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Wood [mailto:scottwood@freescale.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:16 AM
> To: Andy Fleming
> Cc: joe.hamman@embeddedspecialties.com; linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be
> configurable
> 
> Andy Fleming wrote:
> > It's actually a per-tsec property.  There's not one tbi, there's one
> > per TSEC.  The one on TSEC 0 is special in that it can interfere with
> > PHYs on the MDIO bus.
> >
> > So I would suggest making it a property of the ethernet node:
> >
> > ethernet@24000 {
> > ...
> > tbipa = <1f>;
> > ...
> > }
> 
> "tbipa" isn't likely to pass the Segher test. :-)
> 
> If the TBI address is in PHY-space, then it should go in the MDIO bus.
> For the second TSEC, create a second MDIO bus node.
> 

How about something like this?

		mdio@24520 {
			#address-cells = <1>;
			#size-cells = <0>;
			device_type = "mdio";
			compatible = "gianfar";
			reg = <24520 20>;
			phy1f: ethernet-phy@1f {
				reg = <1f>;
				device_type = "ethernet-phy";
			};
			phy0: ethernet-phy@0 {
				reg = <0>;
				device_type = "ethernet-phy";
			};
			phy1: ethernet-phy@1 {
				reg = <1>;
				device_type = "ethernet-phy";
			};
			phy2: ethernet-phy@2 {
				reg = <2>;
				device_type = "ethernet-phy";
			};
			tbi1e: ethernet-tbi@1e {
				reg = <1e>;
				device_type = "ethernet-tbi";
			};
		};

		ethernet@24000 {
			#address-cells = <1>;
			#size-cells = <0>;
			device_type = "network";
			model = "eTSEC";
			compatible = "gianfar";
			reg = <24000 1000>;
			mac-address = [ 00 E0 0C 00 73 00 ];
			interrupts = <1d 2 1e 2 22 2>;
			interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
			phy-handle = <&phy1f>;
			tbi-handle = <&tbi1e>;
		};


Joe

Re: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be configurable

[Scott Wood]

Joe Hamman wrote:
> 		ethernet@24000 {
> 			#address-cells = <1>;
> 			#size-cells = <0>;
> 			device_type = "network";
> 			model = "eTSEC";
> 			compatible = "gianfar";
> 			reg = <24000 1000>;
> 			mac-address = [ 00 E0 0C 00 73 00 ];
> 			interrupts = <1d 2 1e 2 22 2>;
> 			interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
> 			phy-handle = <&phy1f>;
> 			tbi-handle = <&tbi1e>;
> 		};

Is any given board going to have at runtime (i.e. not jumper selectable) 
  both a phy and a tbi (I'm not very familiar with the latter, so I 
apologize if this is a dumb question).  If not, I'd stick with 
phy-handle and have something in the phy node to indicate that it's tbi.

-Scott

Re: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be configurable

[Andy Fleming]

On Aug 14, 2007, at 13:00, Scott Wood wrote:

> Joe Hamman wrote:
>> 		ethernet@24000 {
>> 			#address-cells = <1>;
>> 			#size-cells = <0>;
>> 			device_type = "network";
>> 			model = "eTSEC";
>> 			compatible = "gianfar";
>> 			reg = <24000 1000>;
>> 			mac-address = [ 00 E0 0C 00 73 00 ];
>> 			interrupts = <1d 2 1e 2 22 2>;
>> 			interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
>> 			phy-handle = <&phy1f>;
>> 			tbi-handle = <&tbi1e>;
>> 		};
>
> Is any given board going to have at runtime (i.e. not jumper  
> selectable)  both a phy and a tbi (I'm not very familiar with the  
> latter, so I apologize if this is a dumb question).  If not, I'd  
> stick with phy-handle and have something in the phy node to  
> indicate that it's tbi.


Yes.  That will be the more common case.  The TBI PHYs are connected  
to the MDIO pins of each TSEC.  The TBIPA register defines what  
address it sits on.  It is used to configure non MII-style data  
connections, usually to another PHY.  For instance, to configure a  
TSEC for SGMII, you first configure the attached TBI to communicate  
with the on-chip SERDES.

While the TBI devices technically all sit on MDIO busses, only the  
TBI PHY connected to the first TSEC will interfere with MDIO  
transactions.  I don't think we need to create nodes for each of the  
TBIs.  They exist as a secondary part of the ethernet controller, and  
their address is only really important to that controller.

I still think it should just be a property of the ethernet node.  We  
aren't describing the TBI, we're describing a setting for the  
ethernet controller's register.

Andy

RE: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be configurable

[Joe Hamman]

Hi Andy,

> >
> > Is any given board going to have at runtime (i.e. not jumper
> > selectable)  both a phy and a tbi (I'm not very familiar with the
> > latter, so I apologize if this is a dumb question).  If not, I'd
> > stick with phy-handle and have something in the phy node to
> > indicate that it's tbi.
> 
> 
> Yes.  That will be the more common case.  The TBI PHYs are connected
> to the MDIO pins of each TSEC.  The TBIPA register defines what
> address it sits on.  It is used to configure non MII-style data
> connections, usually to another PHY.  For instance, to configure a
> TSEC for SGMII, you first configure the attached TBI to communicate
> with the on-chip SERDES.
> 
> While the TBI devices technically all sit on MDIO busses, only the
> TBI PHY connected to the first TSEC will interfere with MDIO
> transactions.  I don't think we need to create nodes for each of the
> TBIs.  They exist as a secondary part of the ethernet controller, and
> their address is only really important to that controller.
> 
> I still think it should just be a property of the ethernet node.  We
> aren't describing the TBI, we're describing a setting for the
> ethernet controller's register.
> 

Like this?  Do we need to have one for each ethernet@xxxxxx?

	ethernet@24000 {
		#address-cells = <1>;
		#size-cells = <0>;
		device_type = "network";
		model = "eTSEC";
		compatible = "gianfar";
		reg = <24000 1000>;
		mac-address = [ 00 E0 0C 00 73 00 ];
		interrupts = <1d 2 1e 2 22 2>;
		interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
		phy-handle = <&phy1f>;
		tbi-address = <0x1e>;
	};

Joe

Re: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be configurable

[Andy Fleming]

On Aug 14, 2007, at 16:01, Joe Hamman wrote:

> Hi Andy,
>>
>> I still think it should just be a property of the ethernet node.  We
>> aren't describing the TBI, we're describing a setting for the
>> ethernet controller's register.
>>
>
> Like this?  Do we need to have one for each ethernet@xxxxxx?


Scott and I have been talking, and right now it seems like a better  
idea might be to have the TBI address get assigned dynamically, based  
on where PHYs aren't.

It's non-trivial to do (though not difficult), but this way we won't  
have to regret creating a bad interface.  You just need to look at  
the mdio bus, and find out which addresses responded.  Then you  
create a variable in the gfar_private structure to hold what it gets  
set to, and make sure that gfar_configure_serdes uses that value  
instead of the TBIPA constant.

Andy

RE: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be configurable

[Joe Hamman]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Fleming [mailto:afleming@freescale.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:30 PM
> To: joe.hamman@embeddedspecialties.com
> Cc: 'Scott Wood'; linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [UPDATED] tsec: Allow Ten Bit Interface to be
> configurable
> 
> 
> On Aug 14, 2007, at 16:01, Joe Hamman wrote:
> 
> > Hi Andy,
> >>
> >> I still think it should just be a property of the ethernet node.  We
> >> aren't describing the TBI, we're describing a setting for the
> >> ethernet controller's register.
> >>
> >
> > Like this?  Do we need to have one for each ethernet@xxxxxx?
> 
> 
> Scott and I have been talking, and right now it seems like a better
> idea might be to have the TBI address get assigned dynamically, based
> on where PHYs aren't.
> 
> It's non-trivial to do (though not difficult), but this way we won't
> have to regret creating a bad interface.  You just need to look at
> the mdio bus, and find out which addresses responded.  Then you
> create a variable in the gfar_private structure to hold what it gets
> set to, and make sure that gfar_configure_serdes uses that value
> instead of the TBIPA constant.

Sounds like a good plan.  I'll try to put something together and post for
comments.

Thanks,
Joe