Am Freitag, 9. August 2024, 16:38:23 CEST schrieb Detlev Casanova:
> On Friday, 9 August 2024 09:16:44 EDT Heiko Stübner wrote:
> > Hi Detlev,
> >
> > Am Donnerstag, 8. August 2024, 19:00:18 CEST schrieb Detlev Casanova:
> > > From: David Wu <david.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Add constants and callback functions for the dwmac on RK3576 soc.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Wu <david.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > [rebase, extracted bindings]
> > > Signed-off-by: Detlev Casanova <detlev.casanova@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > .../net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c | 156 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 156 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
> > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c index
> > > 7ae04d8d291c8..e1fa8fc9f4012 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
> > > @@ -1116,6 +1116,161 @@ static const struct rk_gmac_ops rk3568_ops = {
> > >
> > > },
> > >
> > > };
> > >
>
> [...]
>
> > > +/* SDGMAC_GRF */
> > > +#define RK3576_GRF_GMAC_CON0 0X0020
> > > +#define RK3576_GRF_GMAC_CON1 0X0024
> > > +
> > > +#define RK3576_GMAC_RMII_MODE GRF_BIT(3)
> > > +#define RK3576_GMAC_RGMII_MODE GRF_CLR_BIT(3)
> > > +
> > > +#define RK3576_GMAC_CLK_SELET_IO GRF_BIT(7)
> > > +#define RK3576_GMAC_CLK_SELET_CRU GRF_CLR_BIT(7)
> >
> > nit: typos _CLK_SELECT_ ... missing the C in select
>
> Ack
So all points below are resolved, and with the C added
Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> > > +
> > > +#define RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RMII_DIV2 GRF_BIT(5)
> > > +#define RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RMII_DIV20 GRF_CLR_BIT(5)
> >
> > I think those are backwards
> > The TRM says bit[5]=0: 25MHz (DIV2) and bit[5]=1: 2.5MHz (DIV20)
> >
> > I guess nobody also on Rockchip's side tested a RMII phy on those controllrs
>
> Can't be sure about that. An error in the TRM is not impossible either, as for
> rk3588, it is also bit[5]=0: DIV20 and bit[5]=1: DIV2. I can switch them to
> match the TRM though, we may never now.
As David said, the TRM is wrong and the code is correct, so all good
>
> > > +
> > > +#define RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RGMII_DIV1 \
> > > + (GRF_CLR_BIT(6) | GRF_CLR_BIT(5))
> > > +#define RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RGMII_DIV5 \
> > > + (GRF_BIT(6) | GRF_BIT(5))
> > > +#define RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RGMII_DIV50 \
> > > + (GRF_BIT(6) | GRF_CLR_BIT(5))
> > > +
> >
> > in contrast, these are correct and match the TRM
> >
> > > +#define RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RMII_GATE GRF_BIT(4)
> > > +#define RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RMII_NOGATE GRF_CLR_BIT(4)
> > > +
> > > +static void rk3576_set_to_rgmii(struct rk_priv_data *bsp_priv,
> > > + int tx_delay, int rx_delay)
> > > +{
> > > + struct device *dev = &bsp_priv->pdev->dev;
> > > + unsigned int offset_con;
> > > +
> > > + if (IS_ERR(bsp_priv->grf) || IS_ERR(bsp_priv->php_grf)) {
> > > + dev_err(dev, "Missing rockchip,grf or rockchip,php_grf
> property\n");
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + offset_con = bsp_priv->id == 1 ? RK3576_GRF_GMAC_CON1 :
> > > + RK3576_GRF_GMAC_CON0;
> > > +
> > > + regmap_write(bsp_priv->grf, offset_con, RK3576_GMAC_RGMII_MODE);
> > > +
> > > + offset_con = bsp_priv->id == 1 ? RK3576_VCCIO0_1_3_IOC_CON4 :
> > > +
> RK3576_VCCIO0_1_3_IOC_CON2;
> > > +
> > > + /* m0 && m1 delay enabled */
> > > + regmap_write(bsp_priv->php_grf, offset_con,
> > > + DELAY_ENABLE(RK3576, tx_delay, rx_delay));
> > > + regmap_write(bsp_priv->php_grf, offset_con + 0x4,
> > > + DELAY_ENABLE(RK3576, tx_delay, rx_delay));
> > > +
> > > + /* m0 && m1 delay value */
> > > + regmap_write(bsp_priv->php_grf, offset_con,
> > > + RK3576_GMAC_CLK_TX_DL_CFG(tx_delay) |
> > > + RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RX_DL_CFG(rx_delay));
> > > + regmap_write(bsp_priv->php_grf, offset_con + 0x4,
> > > + RK3576_GMAC_CLK_TX_DL_CFG(tx_delay) |
> > > + RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RX_DL_CFG(rx_delay));
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void rk3576_set_to_rmii(struct rk_priv_data *bsp_priv)
> > > +{
> > > + struct device *dev = &bsp_priv->pdev->dev;
> > > + unsigned int offset_con;
> > > +
> > > + if (IS_ERR(bsp_priv->php_grf)) {
> > > + dev_err(dev, "%s: Missing rockchip,php_grf property\n",
> __func__);
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + offset_con = bsp_priv->id == 1 ? RK3576_GRF_GMAC_CON1 :
> > > + RK3576_GRF_GMAC_CON0;
> > > +
> > > + regmap_write(bsp_priv->grf, offset_con, RK3576_GMAC_RMII_MODE);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void rk3576_set_gmac_speed(struct rk_priv_data *bsp_priv, int
> > > speed) +{
> > > + struct device *dev = &bsp_priv->pdev->dev;
> > > + unsigned int val = 0, offset_con;
> > > +
> > > + switch (speed) {
> > > + case 10:
> > > + if (bsp_priv->phy_iface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RMII)
> > > + val = RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RMII_DIV20;
> > > + else
> > > + val = RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RGMII_DIV50;
> >
> > val = bsp_priv->phy_iface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RMII ?
> > RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RMII_DIV20 :
> > RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RGMII_DIV50;
> > perhaps?
>
> This way matches how it is written in rk3588_set_gmac_speed(). I find that
> having similar code for similar functions helps reading and understanding it
> better (although I agree that your suggestion looks better).
>
> I'd rather keep it like it is for now if that's ok.
ok, there is not much difference between the two variants anyway.
> > > + break;
> > > + case 100:
> > > + if (bsp_priv->phy_iface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RMII)
> > > + val = RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RMII_DIV2;
> > > + else
> > > + val = RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RGMII_DIV5;
> >
> > same as above?
> >
> > > + break;
> > > + case 1000:
> > > + if (bsp_priv->phy_iface != PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RMII)
> > > + val = RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RGMII_DIV1;
> > > + else
> > > + goto err;
> >
> > if (bsp_priv->phy_iface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RMII)
> > goto err;
> >
> > val = RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RGMII_DIV1;
> >
> > > + break;
> > > + default:
> > > + goto err;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + offset_con = bsp_priv->id == 1 ? RK3576_GRF_GMAC_CON1 :
> > > + RK3576_GRF_GMAC_CON0;
> > > +
> > > + regmap_write(bsp_priv->grf, offset_con, val);
> > > +
> > > + return;
> > > +err:
> > > + dev_err(dev, "unknown speed value for GMAC speed=%d", speed);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void rk3576_set_clock_selection(struct rk_priv_data *bsp_priv,
> > > bool input, + bool enable)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned int val = input ? RK3576_GMAC_CLK_SELET_IO :
> > > + RK3576_GMAC_CLK_SELET_CRU;
> > > + unsigned int offset_con;
> > > +
> > > + val |= enable ? RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RMII_NOGATE :
> > > + RK3576_GMAC_CLK_RMII_GATE;
> > > +
> > > + offset_con = bsp_priv->id == 1 ? RK3576_GRF_GMAC_CON1 :
> > > + RK3576_GRF_GMAC_CON0;
> >
> > nit: alignment of both looks like it could be nicer
>
> That's strange, the alignments looks good in vim and git diff. It also looks
> nice on the archive: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rockchip/
> 20240808170113.82775-3-detlev.casanova@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
ok, probably just some display artifact here :-)
