From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from chumsalmon.baetis.net (chumsalmon.baetis.net [209.222.21.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A1952E8E03; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 12:10:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.222.21.150 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756815024; cv=none; b=hNRp49/1XLJbY4P1kcplCQlQYsa8zsg+Cni0VpAthNSwWEtDjEYf36ZFXdbFxv3ZljY8tPW6ayFjUlVbWNkBEqArCYjzgxsasf3zGDybzJ6G7KNmD3vH68JY09JgFAGbO+DtDsKDVU7viL3QfGXIl8+ZSG/+0JvzF7wNA2Fwii4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756815024; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5XjTx7iK7PHq+3BKdY0v5CJO3xIQLjdIo808+rqI8JM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=NXycQ41Gh7fkZbHEk5rRTH7Cy+Ma1ewRt3vkXP0vV1VvgI7A4Xq9SluoBdDya6lM4V7FVmkRs5GL3161rr+Gon8kEWDfX4VP7im09Z8TdTsow8sivt0bc+2rYYiCiffVWVL8nRDlzJXdYbRac83G9pANgnrxwdrAgeBsY9hmYAY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=tahomasoft.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tahomasoft.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tahomasoft.com header.i=@tahomasoft.com header.b=J+4N4aq6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.222.21.150 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=tahomasoft.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tahomasoft.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tahomasoft.com header.i=@tahomasoft.com header.b="J+4N4aq6" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tahomasoft.com; s=default; t=1756815015; bh=5XjTx7iK7PHq+3BKdY0v5CJO3xIQLjdIo808+rqI8JM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=J+4N4aq6ngHs+ccgv27484VTZULp5l5v/wrlliCsZwWYcCoaNPhdAW/RoqndD8J+n HOIs/OyO2bVuZufZMOObfjWNTCXguJDsXEL64wszwixL10CNyyQLlTThhKW5hA5fI6 Qftx6w7hSZyFoUUIzNXYYSxB0HV5qUfWu5rdRow0erHV5xYhTUHBkYYIrl/c2PmmlT sF4GDsBDK3lPXFGcsOlzdePwHGewdw+hFibP89j59+ah3v7La+Hy6oo9Q2E/7PnZee jmXXDy0bY0A66fjWs3RPFY3HI36/Er/CM/u0QApZdKWhr/n5UKe8n3xqCgECi1Urka MofjlD47NFgdQ== Received: from WahpenayoPeak.tahoma.link (unknown [IPv6:2600:4040:50be:5a04:892f:ee51:308e:70d0]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by chumsalmon.baetis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DBC827E436; Tue, 2 Sep 2025 12:10:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 08:10:14 -0400 From: Erik Beck To: Chukun Pan Cc: andrew@lunn.ch, conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, heiko@sntech.de, krzk+dt@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add HINLINK H68K Message-ID: <20250902081014.0e6eaaf2.xunil@tahomasoft.com> In-Reply-To: <20250902070019.856305-1-amadeus@jmu.edu.cn> References: <20250901100639.234ba07b.xunil@tahomasoft.com> <20250902070019.856305-1-amadeus@jmu.edu.cn> Organization: Tahoma Soft X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.1 (GTK 3.24.49; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 15:00:19 +0800 Chukun Pan wrote: > Hi, Greetings! > > > So what I said earlier regarding rgmii vs rgmii-id DOES NOT hold up > > under more rigorous and careful testing. > > So the following question does not exist? Yes, that is correct. My earlier question/comment/concern about a huge speed difference between rgmii-id mode and rmgmii doesn't seem to exist when more careful experiments and testing methods are used. I'll elaborate some more below. And I apologize for any inconvenience. > >> Changing this makes a huge difference in the ethernet throughput speed. > >> With rgmii-id mode specified, throughput is about 6.5 Mbs. Changing this > >> to rgmii mode increases throughput to about 960 Mbs. > I'm still a bit surprised that my first test method (web-based, like fast.com or self-hosted internal download speeds) gave such different results from more comprehensive and careful testing with iperf3. While certainly web-based methods can't target a particular interface, nor do they have many other potential adjustments or refinements (UDP vs TCP, etc), they have been and continue to be a useful tool for me to get quick information about the status and health of my network and its devices. > If the iperf3 test does not reach Gigabit, you can run it in > multiple threads. e.g. `iperf3 -c xxx -P 4` Thanks for the tip. I remain keenly interested in seeing a patch for the Hinlink/LinkStar devices make it into the mainline kernel. Please let me know how I can help your (and others) efforts to accomplish that. Regards, Erik