[net,PATCH] Revert "enetc: Increase eMDIO MDC rate to 2.5 MHz"

[net,PATCH] Revert "enetc: Increase eMDIO MDC rate to 2.5 MHz"

[Marek Vasut]

This reverts commit 587acb86d6465efdc03f6d8524461e6e725597b7.

While the i.MX95 MDIO MDC clock is improved by the commit
587acb86d646 ("enetc: Increase eMDIO MDC rate to 2.5 MHz"),
other SoCs use different base clock for their MDIO and the
MDC clock on those SoCs is set out of specification by the
aforementioned commit. The fix for the i.MX95 MDIO MDC has
to be done differently, and will be done so in a follow up
change. Until that is done, revert the commit to fix the
other SoCs.

Fixes: 587acb86d646 ("enetc: Increase eMDIO MDC rate to 2.5 MHz")
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@nabladev.com>
---
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>
Cc: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@nxp.com>
Cc: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Cc: Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com>
Cc: imx@lists.linux.dev
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
---
NOTE: This is for v7.4
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_mdio.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_mdio.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_mdio.c
index a90a04a47befd..998aaa394e9c4 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_mdio.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_mdio.c
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
 
 #define ENETC_EMDIO_CFG \
 	(MDIO_CFG_HOLD(2) | \
-	 MDIO_CFG_CLKDIV(66) | \
+	 MDIO_CFG_CLKDIV(258) | \
 	 MDIO_CFG_NEG)
 
 #define MDIO_CTL_DEV_ADDR(x)	((x) & 0x1f)
-- 
2.53.0

Re: [net,PATCH] Revert "enetc: Increase eMDIO MDC rate to 2.5 MHz"

[netdev-bot+sinfo]

Hi!

This is an automated message. This series looks like a fix, but its
commit messages seem to be missing some information:

 - How the issue was discovered, e.g. hit in production, hit during
   development, syzbot report, manual code inspection, LLM or static
   analysis tool scan.

 - Whether the issue was actually triggered, or is only theoretical
   (e.g. found by code inspection). If it was triggered please include
   the symptoms, like the stack trace or error messages.

 - What hardware the change was tested on. For driver fixes please
   mention the device (and if relevant firmware version) used for
   testing, or say that the change was not tested on real hardware.

Please do not repost the series just to address the above. Instead,
reply to this email with the missing information, so that reviewers
can take it into account. If the series needs another revision for
other reasons, please include the information in the commit messages
then.

The evaluation is done by an LLM so it may be wrong, if you think
that is the case please reply and explain.