[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZWWrf4svgQc8x1PU@debian>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:57:35 +0100
From: Ramón Nordin Rodriguez
<ramon.nordin.rodriguez@...roamp.se>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] net: microchip_t1s: additional phy support and
collision detect handling
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 05:03:54PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > * 3-4 nodes (depending on how many usb ports and dongles I have)
> > * run iperf with long cables and CSMA/CD
> > * run iperf with long cables and CMSA/No CD
> >
> > I'll report back the results. Anything you'd like to add/focus on with
> > evaluation?
>
> Humm, thinking about how CSMA/CD works...
>
> Maybe look at what counters the MAC provides. Does it have collisions
> and bad FCS? A collision should result in a bad FCS, if you are not
> using CD. So if things are working correctly, the count for CD should
> move to FCS if you turn CD off. If CD is falsely triggering, FCS as a
> % should not really change, but you probably get more frames over the
> link?
>
That is some really cool input, I have to do some datasheet digging and
hacking. I'll try to set everything up today, tomorrow I can hang in
the lab after hours and test things out!
Partihban suggested that Microchips support might be able to help with
testing, might give them a ping soon as I a solid plan.
Really appreciate the insight!
R
Powered by blists - more mailing lists