netdev - Re: [RFT net-next 2/2] net: stmmac: dwmac-meson8b: don't try to change m250

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 24 Dec 2017 00:12:17 +0100
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
To:     Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, ingrassia@...genesys.com,
        linus.luessing@...3.blue, khilman@...libre.com,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        peppe.cavallaro@...com, alexandre.torgue@...com
Subject: Re: [RFT net-next 2/2] net: stmmac: dwmac-meson8b: don't try to
 change m250_div parent's rate

On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-12-23 at 22:49 +0100, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
>> while calculating this with a target frequency of 500MHz manually
>> again I saw that there's a remainder of 10Mhz after the initial
>> division.
>> remainder * SDM_DEN = 163840000000 - this value overflows 32-bit,
>> things will go downhill from here... :)
>> long story short: here's a patch for that issue: [0]
>
> Thanks for the fix !
>
>>
>> the results with "CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT | CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT" on the mux:
>
> Actually, I don't think you need the CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT
as I have to re-test this on the GX SoCs anyways I'll give it a go
without CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT. stay tuned...

>>     fixed_pll                             3            3  2550000000
>>        0 0
>>       mpll2                              1            1   124999851
>>       0 0
>>          c9410000.ethernet#m250_sel           1            1
>> 124999851          0 0
>>             c9410000.ethernet#m250_div           1            1
>> 124999851          0 0
>>                c9410000.ethernet#m25_div           1            1
>> 24999971          0 0
>>
>> this is even closer to 25MHz than the values in the vendor driver
>> (120Hz vs 29Hz)
>> I'll re-spin this series, then Emiliano "just" has to confirm that
>> it's also working for him (despite the dividers in the dwmac-meson8b
>> driver are set up different compared to the vendor driver)
>
> if the rate of the parent clock of mux may change, I think following part should
> be changed as well
>
>         case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RMII:
>                 /* Use the rate of the mux clock for the internal RMII PHY */
>                 clk_rate = clk_get_rate(dwmac->m250_mux_clk);
>
> I think it is a bit weak anyway, as it depends on the initial settings. Do you
> remember why you wrote this way ?
actually this is confusing and a no-op: I'll have to fix it with a
re-spin of this series anyways.

while trying to make sense why Ethernet wouldn't work on Emiliano's
Odroid-C1 I stumbled across this header: [0]
it explains why it doesn't matter which values are set for the
mux/dividers in RMII mode: the clocks are used to generate the "RGMII
clock"
the currrent code is a no-op since the common clock framework sets all
dividers in PRG_ETH0 to 0 - which results in a register value of
0x1800 (which used by the vendor driver for RMII)

I will add a patch which ignores the clocks in RMII mode: this is also
needed because we don't want to configure MPLL2 on Meson8b in RMII
mode

>>
>> > > - according to the datasheet the allowed range of the mpll2 clock is
>> > > 250..637MHz - 127488329Hz is what we get from the common clock
>> > > framework
>> >
>> > Yes, I've seen that but we are able compute out of that range and, so far, the
>> > actual rate of clock seems coherent with the calculation. At least, when I
>> > tested with the audio, it was the case.
>>
>> I'm curious: ...on a GX SoCs probably?
>
> Indeed, you got me !
good to know - I'll try to keep the 32-bit overflow issues in mind
when things don't work on Meson8/Meson8b even if they do work on the
GX SoCs


Regards
Martin

[0] https://github.com/endlessm/u-boot-meson/blob/345ee7eb02903f5ecb1173ffb2cd36666e44ebed/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-m8b/aml_eth_reg.h#L489