[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190409104523.nunbq6mz5633hx2m@verge.net.au>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 12:45:24 +0200
From: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
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
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 07:49:03PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > @@ -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.
Hi Andrew,
I suspect there are such blobs out there and I'm not sure
what the fall-out may or may not be.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists