A couple of clarifications on the SGMII internal PHY and the DMA capability of the EMAC inline. On 04/14/2016 04:19 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 14/04/16 13:19, Timur Tabi wrote: >> Florian Fainelli wrote: >>> On 13/04/16 10:59, Timur Tabi wrote: >>>> From: Gilad Avidov <gavidov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Add supports for ethernet controller HW on Qualcomm Technologies, >>>> Inc. SoC. >>>> This driver supports the following features: >>>> 1) Checksum offload. >>>> 2) Runtime power management support. >>>> 3) Interrupt coalescing support. >>>> 4) SGMII phy. >>>> 5) SGMII direct connection without external phy. >>> >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> +- qcom,no-external-phy : Indicates there is no external PHY >>>> connected to >>>> + EMAC. Include this only if the EMAC is directly >>>> + connected to the peer end without EPHY. >>> How is the internal PHY accessed, is it responding on the MDIO bus at a >>> particular address? >> There is a set of memory-mapped registers. It's not connected via MDIO >> at all. It's mapped via the "sgmii" addresses in the device tree (see >> function emac_sgmii_config). >> >>> If so, standard MDIO scanning/probing works, and you >>> can have your PHY driver flag this device has internal. Worst case, you >>> can do what BCMGENET does, and have a special "phy-mode" value set to >>> "internal" when this knowledge needs to exist prior to MDIO bus scanning >>> (e.g: to power on the PHY). >> So the internal phy is not a real phy. It's not capable of driving an >> RJ45 port (there's no analog part). It's an SGMII-like device that is >> hard-wired to the EMAC itself. There *is* an analog part to the internal SGMII PHY. Please check the SGMII specification. The only non-standard part is that it's not on MDIO. > OK, that explains things a bit, thanks, this is quite a bit of important > detail actually. > >> In theory, the internal PHY is optional. You could design an SOC that >> has just the EMAC connected via normal MDIO to an external phy. I >> really wish our hardware designers has done that. But unfortunately, >> there are no SOCs like that, and so we have to treat the internal phy as >> an extension of the EMAC. >> >> My preference would be to get rid of the "qcom,no-external-phy" property >> and have an external phy be required, at least until Qualcomm creates an >> SOC without the internal phy (which may never happen, for all I know). >> > Can we just say that, an absence of PHY specified in the Device Tree (no > phy-handle property and PHY not a child node of the MDIO bus), means > that there is no external PHY? > > [snip] > > [snip] >>>> + dev_set_drvdata(&pdev->dev, netdev); >>>> + SET_NETDEV_DEV(netdev, &pdev->dev); >>>> + >>>> + adpt = netdev_priv(netdev); >>>> + adpt->netdev = netdev; >>>> + phy = &adpt->phy; >>>> + adpt->msg_enable = netif_msg_init(debug, EMAC_MSG_DEFAULT); >>>> + >>>> + dma_set_mask_and_coherent(&pdev->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32)); >>> Really, is not that supposed to run on ARM64 servers? >> Well, this version of the driver isn't, which is why it supports DT and >> not ACPI. I'm planning on adding that support in a later patch. >> However, I'll add support for 64-bit masks in the next version of this >> patch. >> >> Would this be okay: >> >> retval = dma_coerce_mask_and_coherent(&pdev->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64)); >> if (retval) { >> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to set DMA mask err %d\n", retval); >> goto err_res; >> } How can you set the mask to 64 bits when the EMAC IP on FSM9900 and QDF2432 can only do 32 bit DMA? The mask in that API is a bit mask describing which bits of an address your device supports. >> I've seen code like this in other drivers: >> >> ret = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64)); >> if (ret) { >> ret = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32)); >> if (ret) { >> dev_err(dev, "failed to set dma mask\n"); >> return ret; >> } >> } >> >> and I've never understood why it's necessary to fall back to 32-bits if >> 64 bits fails. Isn't 64 bits a superset of 32 bits? The driver is >> saying that the hardware supports all of DDR. How could fail, and how >> could 32-bit succeed if 64-bits fails? > I believe there could be cases where the HW is capable of addressing > more physical memory than the CPU itself (usually unlikely, but it > could), there could be cases where the HW is behind an IOMMMU which only > has a window into the DDR, and that could prevent a higher DMA_BIT_MASK > from being successfully configured. -- Vikram Sethi Qualcomm Technologies Inc, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html