On 23 December 2017 at 15:01, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
> <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 23 December 2017 at 05:45, <jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> From: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> This driver adds support for Socionext "netsec" IP Gigabit
>>> Ethernet + PHY IP used in the Synquacer SC2A11 SoC.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/Kconfig | 1 +
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/Makefile | 1 +
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/Kconfig | 29 +
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/Makefile | 1 +
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/netsec.c | 1844 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 5 files changed, 1876 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/Kconfig
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/Makefile
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/netsec.c
>>>
>> ...
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/netsec.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/netsec.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..6af047b
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/netsec.c
>> ...
>>> +static int netsec_netdev_load_ucode_region(struct netsec_priv *priv, u32 reg,
>>> + u32 addr_h, u32 addr_l, u32 size)
>>> +{
>>> + u64 base = (u64)addr_h << 32 | addr_l;
>>> + void __iomem *ucode;
>>> + u32 i;
>>> +
>>> + ucode = ioremap(base, size * sizeof(u32));
>>> + if (!ucode)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
>>> + netsec_write(priv, reg, readl(ucode + i));
>>> +
>>
>> This is incorrect. The microcode is written one u32 word at a time,
>> and indexing ucode like this results in byte indexing, not u32
>> indexing.
>>
> Ouch! careless mistake. I was too eager to get done with netsec before
> I leave for holidays.
>
>> I changed the ucode declaration locally to
>>
>> u32 __iomem *ucode;
>>
>> and now everything works fine again.
>>
> Or we keep the void pointer but do readl(ucode + i * 4) ?
>
Whichever you prefer.
>
>>
>>> + iounmap(ucode);
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>> ...
>>> +static int netsec_register_mdio(struct netsec_priv *priv, u32 phy_addr)
>>> +{
>>> + struct mii_bus *bus;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + bus = devm_mdiobus_alloc(priv->dev);
>>> + if (!bus)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + snprintf(bus->id, MII_BUS_ID_SIZE, "%s", dev_name(priv->dev));
>>> + bus->priv = priv;
>>> + bus->name = "SNI NETSEC MDIO";
>>> + bus->read = netsec_phy_read;
>>> + bus->write = netsec_phy_write;
>>> + bus->parent = priv->dev;
>>> + priv->mii_bus = bus;
>>> +
>>> + if (dev_of_node(priv->dev)) {
>>> + struct device_node *mdio_node, *parent = dev_of_node(priv->dev);
>>> +
>>> + mdio_node = of_get_child_by_name(parent, "mdio");
>>> + if (mdio_node) {
>>> + parent = mdio_node;
>>> + } else {
>>> + /* older f/w doesn't populate the mdio subnode,
>>> + * allow relaxed upgrade of f/w in due time.
>>> + */
>>> + dev_err(priv->dev, "Upgrade f/w for mdio subnode!\n");
>>
>> I wouldn't mind if you dropped this fallback altogether, and would
>> simply stick with the new binding only. However, if you prefer to keep
>> it, could you change this to dev_info()? It is not really an error
>> condition, and dev_err/dev_warns have the annoying tendency to pierce
>> through 'quiet' boot splashes.
>>
> Yes, it should have been dev_info. But I would like to keep it,
> atleast for a couple months. For example, my board needs jtag to
> upgrade f/w.
>
Fair enough.
> Thanks.
Likewise! And happy holidays.
--
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
