[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190408174903.GD15267@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 19:49:03 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@...ge.net.au>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next] ravb: Avoid unsupported internal delay mode
for R-Car E3/D3
> > @@ -1979,8 +1985,9 @@ static void ravb_set_delay_mode(struct net_device *ndev)
> > priv->phy_interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_RXID)
> > set |= APSR_DM_RDM;
> >
> > - if (priv->phy_interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_ID ||
> > - priv->phy_interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_TXID)
> > + if ((priv->phy_interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_ID ||
> > + priv->phy_interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII_TXID) &&
> > + !soc_device_match(ravb_delay_mode_quirk_match))
>
> But don't we need to error out of the probing as we can't set the delay mode
> requested?
Yes, if we can, we should error out. It just depends on if there are
broken DT blobs out there. We recently had a lot of pain from broken
DT blobs using the at803x PHY and getting RGMII modes wrong. In the
long run, it is best to if DT, but i've no idea how many boards are
affected.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists