From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx.nabladev.com (mx.nabladev.com [178.251.229.89]) (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 9D84B47D925; Mon, 12 Oct 2026 17:05:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.251.229.89 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791824744; cv=none; b=eJBUF2Hx+G7byuxEHsgmBw73ibfbeyb60UPWD60TSxOFheh3srRyBRvfL8UvylXhgobz4Kcn4CAzqreFHrLIUysDxNcI8hPBjz8TMjkgzbjrkK+dfplNUiQBolZYuf3vPJ3cDQXjpED1oZeaVAZ3iqI17EudMJKLVzFqoWJTZgc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791824744; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hmrAdf0Hqw4AKaMYSOUeplJ8qOW0QPS07WQDpVPD+hk=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=T7RrjgdDXTXRCIpGXV2cDxFP28cJKx2qUU0KCFOuae/R7ZfdyBBzji8M1GQEUSK16a4gLWY/qyZbi4cBt2UQle9dKmbdyCsZ9d2SjJgueayXYlMhp5IcUWW75CzsgB6rBO8vmmlxWJWNyvTzT77yXBh0OiYUm5bOaNJkoHzOHQQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=nabladev.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nabladev.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nabladev.com header.i=@nabladev.com header.b=U9x6Ld9V; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.251.229.89 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=nabladev.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nabladev.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nabladev.com header.i=@nabladev.com header.b="U9x6Ld9V" Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 028A5108D00; Mon, 12 Oct 2026 19:05:33 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nabladev.com; s=dkim; t=1791824736; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-language:in-reply-to:references; bh=h8LtgT+boBUMJ9cMgJ+wgTM+dqaUNvYOgZpFyqlIaKU=; b=U9x6Ld9VO9juvp3ytHOmteI9nDKOJ+Vl877BTxQ6RmznWzzEkAcTncT4POhcOCYXWxTSgq P6BAHB2cQ+3toPaCyGX5Oaya3VHN7aQ/JYpaVEjD7d0VWjdiBf52SGIFXMkvEOd9tcVRuR 6Z1C76wgMldJWR69Ty7lx+G2aLKk028vatmsEBd8/Cj/ySowHdOjlD5pQuq4Yd/wRV1BVX d93rjIuuoNBM/AJvArNhcmQmi1OXHFh807Mbo9laJcKMVNqM2Z5/kYuoq1KpxxDx9ys1Aq bi4YDbrP5wMgpoFoI+wmMfvUGaaB8NWoTWFGg306G4692PjxoqStVzUwb5Dn4w== Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 19:05:33 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [net-next,PATCH v2] enetc: Increase eMDIO MDC rate to 2.5 MHz To: Wei Fang , Clark Wang , Claudiu Manoil , Vladimir Oltean Cc: "David S. Miller" , Andrew Lunn , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , "imx@lists.linux.dev" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" References: <20260924180607.60932-1-marex@nabladev.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Marek Vasut In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 On 10/8/26 4:34 AM, Wei Fang wrote: >>>> Clark helped measure the MDC rate on the 95 EVK board this morning, >>>> and the result was 644KHz, which is consistent with the theoretical >>>> value. The scope's accuracy or other factors may be causing you to >>>> observe a rate of 558kHz. >>> >>> That 644 kHz and 558 kHz differs too much to be an equipment >>> miscalibration / misuse. >> >> For the sake of completeness, the MX95 B0 I have on my desk now prints this in >> SM: >> >> >$ clock.r >> ... >> 097: busnetcmix = on, 133333333Hz >> 098: enet = on, 666666666Hz >> 099: enetphytest200m = on, 24000000Hz >> 100: enetphytest500m = on, 24000000Hz >> 101: enetphytest667m = on, 24000000Hz >> 102: enetref = on, 250000000Hz >> 103: enettimer1 = on, 24000000Hz >> >> And the cycle time of MDC is 1.8ms , which is some 550 kHz . > > The enet clock is the source of NETC system clock, and there is a 1/2 > divisor inside the NETCMIX, so the NETC system clock is 333 MHz. > So the MDC clock should be 644 KHz, the frequency measured by > Clark in the attachment is indeed 644kHz. Is there maybe any other clock source that might feed the MDC clock on MX95 B0, that could explain the 558 kHz I observe ? I apologize for my late reply, I am currently catching up on email. Thank you for your help !