[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4add315d-2c7a-ac10-ae99-dc2922bee069@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 10:42:09 +0100
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: phy: aquantia: report PHY details like
firmware version
On 24.03.2019 02:04, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>
> On 3/23/2019 6:15 AM, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> Add reporting firmware details. These details are available only once
>> the firmware has finished initializing the chip. This can take some
>> time and we need to poll for init completion.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
>> ---
>
> [snip]
>>
>> +/* If we configure settings whilst firmware is still initializing the chip,
>> + * then these settings may be overwritten. Therefore make sure chip
>> + * initialization has completed. Use presence of the firmware ID as
>> + * indicator for initialization having completed.
>> + * The chip also provides a "reset completed" bit, but it's cleared after
>> + * read. Therefore function would time out if called again.
>> + */
>
> Is there a way to say, run a checksum calculation on the firmware image
> to assess its health/validity as well as read the firmware ID? What
> happens if the PHY is not provisioned with a firmware image? Is it
> expecting for a specific set of MDIO vendor commands to load it over MDIO?
>
It's also possible to load firmware over MDIO, but typically an internal
boot loader reads the firmware directly from a SPI NOR flash.
Vendor registers allow access to the flash and it should be possible to
expose the flash as MTD, but that's a different exercise (I think some
experimental work has been done in that direction already).
Based on the datasheet I'm not sure whether the PHY can work w/o firmware.
The firmware is more than the provisioned register defaults.
>> +static void aqr107_wait_reset_complete(struct phy_device *phydev)
>> +{
>> + int val, retries = 100;
>> +
>> + do {
>> + val = phy_read_mmd(phydev, MDIO_MMD_VEND1, VEND1_GLOBAL_FW_ID);
>> + if (val < 0)
>> + return;
>> + msleep(20);
>> + } while (!val && --retries);
>
> Should not this return 0/-ETIMEDOUT and have the caller propagate that
> error code?
>
Yes, most likely it's better to do this. I'll add it in a v2.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists