[U-Boot] [PATCH] net: macb: sama5d4 is not gigabit capable

[U-Boot] [PATCH] net: macb: sama5d4 is not gigabit capable

[Gregory CLEMENT]

During the initialization of PHY the gigabit bit capable is set if the
controller is a GEM. However, for sama5d4, the GEM is not gigabit
capable. Improperly setting the GBE capability leads to an unresponsive
MAC controller. This patch fix this behavior allowing to use the gmac
with the sama5d4.

Suggested-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
---
 drivers/net/macb.c | 7 +++++--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/macb.c b/drivers/net/macb.c
index a5c1880..642717d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/macb.c
+++ b/drivers/net/macb.c
@@ -480,8 +480,11 @@ static int macb_phy_init(struct macb_device *macb)
 		return 0;
 	}
 
-	/* First check for GMAC */
-	if (macb_is_gem(macb)) {
+	/*
+	 * First check for GMAC, but not the one on SAMA5D4 which is
+	 * not gigabit capabale
+	 */
+	if (macb_is_gem(macb) && ! cpu_is_sama5d4()) {
 		lpa = macb_mdio_read(macb, MII_STAT1000);
 
 		if (lpa & (LPA_1000FULL | LPA_1000HALF)) {
-- 
2.5.0

[U-Boot] [PATCH] net: macb: sama5d4 is not gigabit capable

[Joe Hershberger]

Hi Gregory,

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Gregory CLEMENT
<gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> During the initialization of PHY the gigabit bit capable is set if the
> controller is a GEM. However, for sama5d4, the GEM is not gigabit
> capable. Improperly setting the GBE capability leads to an unresponsive
> MAC controller. This patch fix this behavior allowing to use the gmac
> with the sama5d4.
>
> Suggested-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/macb.c | 7 +++++--
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/macb.c b/drivers/net/macb.c
> index a5c1880..642717d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/macb.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/macb.c
> @@ -480,8 +480,11 @@ static int macb_phy_init(struct macb_device *macb)
>                 return 0;
>         }
>
> -       /* First check for GMAC */
> -       if (macb_is_gem(macb)) {
> +       /*
> +        * First check for GMAC, but not the one on SAMA5D4 which is
> +        * not gigabit capabale
> +        */
> +       if (macb_is_gem(macb) && ! cpu_is_sama5d4()) {

Is there not some other property that can identify the lack of Gigabit
support in the "GEM"? It would be better to not have to keep track of
the next processor and the one after that which has the same
situation.

>                 lpa = macb_mdio_read(macb, MII_STAT1000);
>
>                 if (lpa & (LPA_1000FULL | LPA_1000HALF)) {
> --
> 2.5.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

[U-Boot] [PATCH] net: macb: sama5d4 is not gigabit capable

[Nicolas Ferre]

Le 15/12/2015 20:59, Joe Hershberger a ?crit :
> Hi Gregory,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Gregory CLEMENT
> <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> During the initialization of PHY the gigabit bit capable is set if the
>> controller is a GEM. However, for sama5d4, the GEM is not gigabit
>> capable. Improperly setting the GBE capability leads to an unresponsive
>> MAC controller. This patch fix this behavior allowing to use the gmac
>> with the sama5d4.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/macb.c | 7 +++++--
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/macb.c b/drivers/net/macb.c
>> index a5c1880..642717d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/macb.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/macb.c
>> @@ -480,8 +480,11 @@ static int macb_phy_init(struct macb_device *macb)
>>                 return 0;
>>         }
>>
>> -       /* First check for GMAC */
>> -       if (macb_is_gem(macb)) {
>> +       /*
>> +        * First check for GMAC, but not the one on SAMA5D4 which is
>> +        * not gigabit capabale
>> +        */
>> +       if (macb_is_gem(macb) && ! cpu_is_sama5d4()) {
> 
> Is there not some other property that can identify the lack of Gigabit
> support in the "GEM"? It would be better to not have to keep track of
> the next processor and the one after that which has the same
> situation.

Actually, sama5d2 is in the same situation already...

Bye,

> 
>>                 lpa = macb_mdio_read(macb, MII_STAT1000);
>>
>>                 if (lpa & (LPA_1000FULL | LPA_1000HALF)) {
>> --
>> 2.5.0
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> U-Boot mailing list
>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
>> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
> 


-- 
Nicolas Ferre

[U-Boot] [PATCH] net: macb: sama5d4 is not gigabit capable

[Gregory CLEMENT]

Hi Joe,
 
 On mar., d?c. 15 2015, Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Gregory,
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Gregory CLEMENT
> <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> During the initialization of PHY the gigabit bit capable is set if the
>> controller is a GEM. However, for sama5d4, the GEM is not gigabit
>> capable. Improperly setting the GBE capability leads to an unresponsive
>> MAC controller. This patch fix this behavior allowing to use the gmac
>> with the sama5d4.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/macb.c | 7 +++++--
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/macb.c b/drivers/net/macb.c
>> index a5c1880..642717d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/macb.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/macb.c
>> @@ -480,8 +480,11 @@ static int macb_phy_init(struct macb_device *macb)
>>                 return 0;
>>         }
>>
>> -       /* First check for GMAC */
>> -       if (macb_is_gem(macb)) {
>> +       /* 
>> +        * First check for GMAC, but not the one on SAMA5D4 which is
>> +        * not gigabit capabale
>> +        */
>> +       if (macb_is_gem(macb) && ! cpu_is_sama5d4()) {
>
> Is there not some other property that can identify the lack of Gigabit
> support in the "GEM"? It would be better to not have to keep track of
> the next processor and the one after that which has the same
> situation.

I agree and I started to looked for this kind of information. But there
is not such information documented inside the controller. I also think
of the controller ID but I doubt that there is a link between the
gigabit capability and the version of the GEM. On sama5d3 the revision is
0x119 and the one in sama5d4 is 0x120, so this really reflects the
version of the controller itself and not his capabilities.

I also had a look on how it was done in the kernel, and they relies on
the compatible string which is different for each SoC.

Last thing, but it is only speculation, I think that the gigabit
capability depend on the SoC around the controller and not the
controller itself. Being able to do gigabit means being able to have
high speed dedicated lines and it is out of the scope of the controller
itself. An other hint is actually the fact that we have to set this GBE
bit in the configuration register of the controller, for me that means
that the controller is not aware of it.

Thanks,

Gregory

>
>>                 lpa = macb_mdio_read(macb, MII_STAT1000);
>>
>>                 if (lpa & (LPA_1000FULL | LPA_1000HALF)) {
>> --
>> 2.5.0
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> U-Boot mailing list
>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
>> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

-- 
Gregory Clement, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

[U-Boot] [PATCH] net: macb: sama5d4 is not gigabit capable

[Andreas Bießmann]

Hi all,

On 16.12.2015 10:19, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> Le 15/12/2015 20:59, Joe Hershberger a ?crit :
>> Hi Gregory,
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Gregory CLEMENT
>> <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>>> During the initialization of PHY the gigabit bit capable is set if the
>>> controller is a GEM. However, for sama5d4, the GEM is not gigabit
>>> capable. Improperly setting the GBE capability leads to an unresponsive
>>> MAC controller. This patch fix this behavior allowing to use the gmac
>>> with the sama5d4.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/net/macb.c | 7 +++++--
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/macb.c b/drivers/net/macb.c
>>> index a5c1880..642717d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/macb.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/macb.c
>>> @@ -480,8 +480,11 @@ static int macb_phy_init(struct macb_device *macb)
>>>                 return 0;
>>>         }
>>>
>>> -       /* First check for GMAC */
>>> -       if (macb_is_gem(macb)) {
>>> +       /*
>>> +        * First check for GMAC, but not the one on SAMA5D4 which is
>>> +        * not gigabit capabale
>>> +        */
>>> +       if (macb_is_gem(macb) && ! cpu_is_sama5d4()) {
>>
>> Is there not some other property that can identify the lack of Gigabit
>> support in the "GEM"? It would be better to not have to keep track of
>> the next processor and the one after that which has the same
>> situation.
> 
> Actually, sama5d2 is in the same situation already...

would it be a compromise to patch the macb_is_gem() in favor of the
different usages of this function?

On the other hand I also wonder why the MACB IP tells it is GiB capable
by the IDNUM bitfield. Isn't there a possibility to fix this detection?

Andreas

> 
> Bye,
> 
>>
>>>                 lpa = macb_mdio_read(macb, MII_STAT1000);
>>>
>>>                 if (lpa & (LPA_1000FULL | LPA_1000HALF)) {
>>> --
>>> 2.5.0
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> U-Boot mailing list
>>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
>>> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
>>
> 
> 

[U-Boot] [PATCH] net: macb: sama5d4 is not gigabit capable

[Andreas Bießmann]

Hi Gregory,

On 16.12.2015 10:32, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>  
>  On mar., d?c. 15 2015, Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Gregory,
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Gregory CLEMENT
>> <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>>> During the initialization of PHY the gigabit bit capable is set if the
>>> controller is a GEM. However, for sama5d4, the GEM is not gigabit
>>> capable. Improperly setting the GBE capability leads to an unresponsive
>>> MAC controller. This patch fix this behavior allowing to use the gmac
>>> with the sama5d4.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/net/macb.c | 7 +++++--
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/macb.c b/drivers/net/macb.c
>>> index a5c1880..642717d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/macb.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/macb.c
>>> @@ -480,8 +480,11 @@ static int macb_phy_init(struct macb_device *macb)
>>>                 return 0;
>>>         }
>>>
>>> -       /* First check for GMAC */
>>> -       if (macb_is_gem(macb)) {
>>> +       /* 
>>> +        * First check for GMAC, but not the one on SAMA5D4 which is
>>> +        * not gigabit capabale
>>> +        */
>>> +       if (macb_is_gem(macb) && ! cpu_is_sama5d4()) {
>>
>> Is there not some other property that can identify the lack of Gigabit
>> support in the "GEM"? It would be better to not have to keep track of
>> the next processor and the one after that which has the same
>> situation.
> 
> I agree and I started to looked for this kind of information. But there
> is not such information documented inside the controller. I also think
> of the controller ID but I doubt that there is a link between the
> gigabit capability and the version of the GEM. On sama5d3 the revision is
> 0x119 and the one in sama5d4 is 0x120, so this really reflects the
> version of the controller itself and not his capabilities.

You where faster ... answer my question before I was asking, at least to
the timestamp of the mail ;)

> I also had a look on how it was done in the kernel, and they relies on
> the compatible string which is different for each SoC.

We will get this also if the network detection has moved to DM completely.

> Last thing, but it is only speculation, I think that the gigabit
> capability depend on the SoC around the controller and not the
> controller itself. Being able to do gigabit means being able to have
> high speed dedicated lines and it is out of the scope of the controller
> itself. An other hint is actually the fact that we have to set this GBE
> bit in the configuration register of the controller, for me that means
> that the controller is not aware of it.

Good point. So could we please patch the macb_is_gem() then? I think we
should also add the sama5d2 as Nicolas said this has also no GiB capability.

Andreas

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gregory
> 
>>
>>>                 lpa = macb_mdio_read(macb, MII_STAT1000);
>>>
>>>                 if (lpa & (LPA_1000FULL | LPA_1000HALF)) {
>>> --
>>> 2.5.0
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> U-Boot mailing list
>>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
>>> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
> 

[U-Boot] [PATCH] net: macb: sama5d4 is not gigabit capable

[Gregory CLEMENT]

Hi Andreas,
 
 On mer., d?c. 16 2015, "Andreas Bie?mann" <andreas.devel@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> On 16.12.2015 10:19, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> Le 15/12/2015 20:59, Joe Hershberger a ?crit :
>>> Hi Gregory,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Gregory CLEMENT
>>> <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>>>> During the initialization of PHY the gigabit bit capable is set if the
>>>> controller is a GEM. However, for sama5d4, the GEM is not gigabit
>>>> capable. Improperly setting the GBE capability leads to an unresponsive
>>>> MAC controller. This patch fix this behavior allowing to use the gmac
>>>> with the sama5d4.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/net/macb.c | 7 +++++--
>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/macb.c b/drivers/net/macb.c
>>>> index a5c1880..642717d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/macb.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/macb.c
>>>> @@ -480,8 +480,11 @@ static int macb_phy_init(struct macb_device *macb)
>>>>                 return 0;
>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>> -       /* First check for GMAC */
>>>> -       if (macb_is_gem(macb)) {
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * First check for GMAC, but not the one on SAMA5D4 which is
>>>> +        * not gigabit capabale
>>>> +        */
>>>> +       if (macb_is_gem(macb) && ! cpu_is_sama5d4()) {
>>>
>>> Is there not some other property that can identify the lack of Gigabit
>>> support in the "GEM"? It would be better to not have to keep track of
>>> the next processor and the one after that which has the same
>>> situation.
>> 
>> Actually, sama5d2 is in the same situation already...
>
> would it be a compromise to patch the macb_is_gem() in favor of the
> different usages of this function?

I was thinking of introducing a is_gb_capable() function.

>
> On the other hand I also wonder why the MACB IP tells it is GiB capable
> by the IDNUM bitfield. Isn't there a possibility to fix this
> detection?

the first part of the IDNUM identify the generation of this IP and 0x1
is MACB whereas 0x2 is GEM. As I wrote in my previous email, I _think_
that the GEM is really GiB capabale but the SoC around do not provde the
needed ressource for this (such as line running at GHz).

Gregory
>
> Andreas
>
>> 
>> Bye,
>> 
>>>
>>>>                 lpa = macb_mdio_read(macb, MII_STAT1000);
>>>>
>>>>                 if (lpa & (LPA_1000FULL | LPA_1000HALF)) {
>>>> --
>>>> 2.5.0
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> U-Boot mailing list
>>>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
>>>> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
>>>
>> 
>> 
>

-- 
Gregory Clement, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

[U-Boot] [PATCH] net: macb: sama5d4 is not gigabit capable

[Nicolas Ferre]

Le 16/12/2015 10:41, Gregory CLEMENT a ?crit :
> Hi Andreas,
>  
>  On mer., d?c. 16 2015, "Andreas Bie?mann" <andreas.devel@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On 16.12.2015 10:19, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>>> Le 15/12/2015 20:59, Joe Hershberger a ?crit :
>>>> Hi Gregory,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Gregory CLEMENT
>>>> <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>>>>> During the initialization of PHY the gigabit bit capable is set if the
>>>>> controller is a GEM. However, for sama5d4, the GEM is not gigabit
>>>>> capable. Improperly setting the GBE capability leads to an unresponsive
>>>>> MAC controller. This patch fix this behavior allowing to use the gmac
>>>>> with the sama5d4.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suggested-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/net/macb.c | 7 +++++--
>>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/macb.c b/drivers/net/macb.c
>>>>> index a5c1880..642717d 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/macb.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/macb.c
>>>>> @@ -480,8 +480,11 @@ static int macb_phy_init(struct macb_device *macb)
>>>>>                 return 0;
>>>>>         }
>>>>>
>>>>> -       /* First check for GMAC */
>>>>> -       if (macb_is_gem(macb)) {
>>>>> +       /*
>>>>> +        * First check for GMAC, but not the one on SAMA5D4 which is
>>>>> +        * not gigabit capabale
>>>>> +        */
>>>>> +       if (macb_is_gem(macb) && ! cpu_is_sama5d4()) {
>>>>
>>>> Is there not some other property that can identify the lack of Gigabit
>>>> support in the "GEM"? It would be better to not have to keep track of
>>>> the next processor and the one after that which has the same
>>>> situation.
>>>
>>> Actually, sama5d2 is in the same situation already...
>>
>> would it be a compromise to patch the macb_is_gem() in favor of the
>> different usages of this function?
> 
> I was thinking of introducing a is_gb_capable() function.
> 
>>
>> On the other hand I also wonder why the MACB IP tells it is GiB capable
>> by the IDNUM bitfield. Isn't there a possibility to fix this
>> detection?
> 
> the first part of the IDNUM identify the generation of this IP and 0x1
> is MACB whereas 0x2 is GEM. As I wrote in my previous email, I _think_
> that the GEM is really GiB capabale but the SoC around do not provde the
> needed ressource for this (such as line running at GHz).

Actually, the GEM IP from Cadence can be configured to only do
10/100Mbs. So the IP ID doesn't tell that and the design configuration
registers don't seem to reflect that.

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre