[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <35c25812-7ca9-46b4-bd8d-52d14e82a1fe@classfun.cn>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 12:13:27 +0800
From: Junhao Xie <bigfoot@...ssfun.cn>
To: Chukun Pan <amadeus@....edu.cn>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>, Chukun Pan <amadeus@....edu.cn>,
FUKAUMI Naoki <naoki@...xa.com>, Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Junhao Xie <bigfoot@...ssfun.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: dts: rockchip: add dts for Ariaboard
Photonicat RK3568
On 2024/9/6 11:50, Chukun Pan wrote:
> Hi Junhao,
>
>> I have tried rgmii-id with tx_delay/rx_delay 0x38/0x15, or 0x0/0x0,
>> or directly removed tx_delay/rx_delay, they all didn't transmit data.
>>
>> I saw in dwmac-rk.c that when using rgmii-id, the tx_delay/rx_delay
>> properties in dt are ignored?
>
> When using rgmii-id mode, tx_delay and rx_delay can be removed directly.
> But you need to test whether the rx/tx-internal-delay-ps is appropriate.
>
When tx_delay and rx_delay are removed, the driver prints some errors in kmsg.
Maybe we need to modify the driver?
Lines 1657 and 1668 of drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c:
rk_gmac-dwmac fe010000.ethernet: Can not read property: tx_delay.
rk_gmac-dwmac fe010000.ethernet: set tx_delay to 0x30
rk_gmac-dwmac fe010000.ethernet: Can not read property: rx_delay.
rk_gmac-dwmac fe010000.ethernet: set rx_delay to 0x10
After testing, rx/tx-internal-delay-ps 1500 seems stable:
$ ping 192.168.0.224
64 bytes from 192.168.0.224: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=1.256 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.224: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.146 ms
...
$ iperf3 -t 60 -c 192.168.0.224
Connecting to host 192.168.0.224, port 5201
[ 4] local 192.168.0.101 port 59565 connected to 192.168.0.224 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 114 MBytes 956 Mbits/sec
...
[ 4] 59.00-60.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 6.58 GBytes 942 Mbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-60.00 sec 6.58 GBytes 942 Mbits/sec receiver
Best regards,
Junhao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists