Re: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: ethernet: eswin: add clock sampling control

["Min Lin" <linmin@eswincomputing.com>]

Hi Bo Gan,


> -----Original Messages-----
> From: "Bo Gan" <ganboing@gmail.com>
> Send time:Wednesday, 28/01/2026 10:38:28
> To: "Min Lin" <linmin@eswincomputing.com>, "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
> Cc: "Andrew Lunn" <andrew@lunn.ch>, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk@kernel.org>, 李志 <lizhi2@eswincomputing.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com, alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ningyu@eswincomputing.com, pinkesh.vaghela@einfochips.com, weishangjuan@eswincomputing.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: ethernet: eswin: add clock sampling control
> 
> Hi Min, Russell, Krzysztof,
> 
> On 1/26/26 22:14, Min Lin wrote:
> > Hi Russell,
> > 
> > 
> >> -----Original Messages-----
> >> From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
> >> Send time:Tuesday, 27/01/2026 02:29:09
> >> To: "Min Lin" <linmin@eswincomputing.com>
> >> Cc: "Bo Gan" <ganboing@gmail.com>, "Andrew Lunn" <andrew@lunn.ch>, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk@kernel.org>, 李志 <lizhi2@eswincomputing.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com, alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ningyu@eswincomputing.com, pinkesh.vaghela@einfochips.com, weishangjuan@eswincomputing.com
> >> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: ethernet: eswin: add clock sampling control
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 11:10:12AM +0800, Min Lin wrote:
> >>> Due to chip backend reasons, there is already a ~4-5ns skew between the RX
> >>> clock and data of the eth1 MAC controller inside the silicon.
> >>
> >> Let's analyse this.
> >>
> >> 	TXC / RXC	TXC / RXC
> >> Speed	Clock rate	Clock period
> >> 1G	125MHz		8ns
> >> 100M	25MHz		40ns
> >> 10M	2.5MHz		400ns
> >>
> >> The required skew for TXC and RXC at the receiver is specified to be
> >> between 1 and 2.6ns irrespective of the speed. The edge of the clock
> >> is also important: the rising edge indicates the lower 4 bits, and
> >> the falling edge indicates the upper 4 bits.
> >>
> >> At 1G speed, with a "4 to 5ns" skew in the chip. If this is accurate,
> >> then inverting the clock and adding 1ns of additional skew by some
> >> means (PCB trace, or at the MAC or PHY) will give the required clock
> >> at the receiver.
> >>
> > 
> > Yes, that's exactly the case.
> > 
> >> The timing table in the RGMII standard (3.3) allows for Tcyc (the
> >> clock rate) to be scaled, but there is no allowance for scaling
> >> TskewR (the required 1 to 2.6ns skew.) This skew parameter is
> >> fixed.
> >>
> >> So, at the other speeds, you are completely unable to meet the timing
> >> specification, whether irrespective of the clock inversion. In effect,
> >> the only speed that you can meet the specification is 1G.
> >>
> > 
> > The timing table in the RGMII standard(3.3) says the max value of Tskew
> > for 10/100 is unspecified.
> > Quotation:"note1: ...,For 10/100 the Max value is unspecified."
> > 
> > I think for 10/100, the "4 to 5ns" skew in the chip doesn't break the
> > standard. At 10/100 speeds, it meets the timing specification without
> > having to to add clock inversion.
> > In practice, it works at 10/100 speeds in the rgmii-id phy mode.
> > 
> >> Thus, I think this is something that needs a lot more than just "do
> >> we need to invert the clock". You also need to prevent 10M and 100M
> >> being supported IMHO.
> >>

> 
> I had an offline discussion with Yao Zi and others regarding this. We feel
> like the proper way for ESWIN to deal with this broken eth1 is to have a
> different compatible string just for eth1, where it can be associated with
> platform data with quirks to do eswin,rx-clk-invert at 1G. The property is
> therefore not required to be exposed in DT. (Pretend it conforms to spec
> for 1G). Need confirmation for 10M/100M, though. I double checked Lin Min's
> claim, and indeed the spec says "For 10/100 the Max value is unspecified":
> https://community.nxp.com/pwmxy87654/attachments/pwmxy87654/imx-processors/20655/1/RGMIIv2_0_final_hp.pdf
> 
> Thoughts?

I agree with your approach.

Regards,
Lin Min