On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 07:35:33AM +0000, Madalin Bucur wrote: > Hi, the Freescale emails no longer work, years after Freescale joined NXP. > Also, the first four recipients no longer work for NXP. > > In regards to the sgmii-2500 you see in the device tree, it describes SGMII > overclocked to 2.5Gbps, with autonegotiation disabled. > > A quote from a long time ago, from someone from the HW team on this: > > The industry consensus is that 2.5G SGMII is overclocked 1G SGMII > using XAUI electricals. For the PCS and MAC layers, it looks exactly > like 1G SGMII, just with a faster clock. > > The statement that it does not exist is not accurate, it exists in HW, and > it is described as such in the device tree. Whether or not it is properly > treated in SW it's another discussion. Here's the issue though: 802.3 defined 1000base-X which is a fixed 1G speed interface using a 16-bit control word. Implementations of this exist where the control word can be disabled. Cisco came along, took 1000base-X and augmented it to allow speeds of 10M and 100M by symbol repetition, and changing the format of the 16-bit control word. Otherwise, it is functionally compatible - indeed SGMII with the control word disabled will connect with 1000base-X with the control word disabled. I've done it several times. There exists 2500base-X, which is 1000base-X clocked faster, and it seems the concensus is that it has the AN disabled - in other words, no control word. Now you're saying that SGMII at 2.5G speed exists, which is 1G SGMII fixed at 1G speed, without a control word, upclocked by 2.5x. My question to you is how is how is this SGMII 2.5G different from 2500base-X? > In 2015, when this was submitted, > there were no other 2.5G compatibles in use, if I'm not mistaken. > 2500Base-X started to be added to device trees four years later, it should > be compatible/interworking but it is less specific on the actual implementation > details (denotes 2.5G speed, 8b/10b coding, which is true for this overclocked > SGMII). If they are compatible, SW should probably treat them in the same manner. My argument has been (since I've had experience of SGMII talking to 1000base-X, and have also accidentally clocked such a scenario at 2.5G speeds) that there is in fact no functional difference between SGMII and base-X when they are running at identical speeds with the control word disabled. Given that we well know that industry likes to use the term "SGMII" very loosely to mean <whatever>base-X as well as SGMII, it becomes a very bad term to use when we wish to differentiate between a base-X and a real Cisco SGMII link with their different control word formats. And this has always been my point - industry has created confusion over these terms, but as software programmers, we need to know the difference. So, SGMII should _only_ be used to identify the Cisco SGMII modified version of 802.3 base-X _with_ the modified control word or with the capability of symbol repetition. In other words, the very features that make it SGMII as opposed to 802.3 base-X. Everything else should not use the term SGMII. > There were some discussions a while ago about the mix or even confusion between > the actual HW description (that's what the dts is supposed to do) and the settings > one wants to represent in SW (i.e. speed) denoted loosely by denominations like > 10G Base-R. The "confusion" comes from an abuse of terms. Abused terms really can't adequately be used to describe hardware properties. As I say above, we _know_ that some manufacturers state that their single lane serdes is "SGMII" when it is in fact 1000base-X. That doesn't mean we stuff "sgmii" into device tree because that's what the vendor decided to call it. "sgmii" in the device tree means Cisco's well defined SGMII and does not mean 1000base-X. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
