netdev - Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: ethernet: eswin: add clock sampling control

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

Message-ID: <32a1f814.2c79.19bfe173225.Coremail.linmin@eswincomputing.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 14:14:51 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
From: "Min Lin" <linmin@...incomputing.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Bo Gan" <ganboing@...il.com>, "Andrew Lunn" <andrew@...n.ch>,
	"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk@...nel.org>,
	李志 <lizhi2@...incomputing.com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com,
	alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com,
	linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ningyu@...incomputing.com, pinkesh.vaghela@...fochips.com,
	weishangjuan@...incomputing.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: ethernet: eswin: add clock
 sampling control

Hi Russell,


> -----Original Messages-----
> From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
> Send time:Tuesday, 27/01/2026 02:29:09
> To: "Min Lin" <linmin@...incomputing.com>
> Cc: "Bo Gan" <ganboing@...il.com>, "Andrew Lunn" <andrew@...n.ch>, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk@...nel.org>, 李志 <lizhi2@...incomputing.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ningyu@...incomputing.com, pinkesh.vaghela@...fochips.com, weishangjuan@...incomputing.com
> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: ethernet: eswin: add clock sampling control
> 
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 11:10:12AM +0800, Min Lin wrote:
> > Due to chip backend reasons, there is already a ~4-5ns skew between the RX
> > clock and data of the eth1 MAC controller inside the silicon.
> 
> Let's analyse this.
> 
> 	TXC / RXC	TXC / RXC
> Speed	Clock rate	Clock period
> 1G	125MHz		8ns
> 100M	25MHz		40ns
> 10M	2.5MHz		400ns
> 
> The required skew for TXC and RXC at the receiver is specified to be
> between 1 and 2.6ns irrespective of the speed. The edge of the clock
> is also important: the rising edge indicates the lower 4 bits, and
> the falling edge indicates the upper 4 bits.
> 
> At 1G speed, with a "4 to 5ns" skew in the chip. If this is accurate,
> then inverting the clock and adding 1ns of additional skew by some
> means (PCB trace, or at the MAC or PHY) will give the required clock
> at the receiver.
> 

Yes, that's exactly the case.

> The timing table in the RGMII standard (3.3) allows for Tcyc (the
> clock rate) to be scaled, but there is no allowance for scaling
> TskewR (the required 1 to 2.6ns skew.) This skew parameter is
> fixed.
> 
> So, at the other speeds, you are completely unable to meet the timing
> specification, whether irrespective of the clock inversion. In effect,
> the only speed that you can meet the specification is 1G.
> 

The timing table in the RGMII standard(3.3) says the max value of Tskew
for 10/100 is unspecified.
Quotation:"note1: ...,For 10/100 the Max value is unspecified."

I think for 10/100, the "4 to 5ns" skew in the chip doesn't break the
standard. At 10/100 speeds, it meets the timing specification without
having to to add clock inversion.
In practice, it works at 10/100 speeds in the rgmii-id phy mode.

> Thus, I think this is something that needs a lot more than just "do
> we need to invert the clock". You also need to prevent 10M and 100M
> being supported IMHO.
> 

Regards,
Lin Min