On 2024-12-24 13:05, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 12:36:29PM +0800, Yijie Yang wrote:
On 2024-12-24 12:18, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 11:07:03AM +0800, Yijie Yang wrote:
qcs615 uses EMAC version 2.3.1, add the relevant defines and add the new
compatible.
Signed-off-by: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-qcom-ethqos.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-qcom-ethqos.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-qcom-ethqos.c
index 901a3c1959fa57efb078da795ad4f92a8b6f71e1..8c76beaee48821eb2853f4e3f8bfd37db8cadf78 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-qcom-ethqos.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-qcom-ethqos.c
@@ -249,6 +249,22 @@ static const struct ethqos_emac_driver_data emac_v2_1_0_data = {
.has_emac_ge_3 = false,
};
+static const struct ethqos_emac_por emac_v2_3_1_por[] = {
+ { .offset = RGMII_IO_MACRO_CONFIG, .value = 0x00C01343 },
+ { .offset = SDCC_HC_REG_DLL_CONFIG, .value = 0x2004642C },
lowercase the hex, please.
I will take care of it.
+ { .offset = SDCC_HC_REG_DDR_CONFIG, .value = 0x00000000 },
+ { .offset = SDCC_HC_REG_DLL_CONFIG2, .value = 0x00200000 },
+ { .offset = SDCC_USR_CTL, .value = 0x00010800 },
+ { .offset = RGMII_IO_MACRO_CONFIG2, .value = 0x00002060 },
+};
+
+static const struct ethqos_emac_driver_data emac_v2_3_1_data = {
+ .por = emac_v2_3_1_por,
+ .num_por = ARRAY_SIZE(emac_v2_3_1_por),
+ .rgmii_config_loopback_en = true,
+ .has_emac_ge_3 = false,
+};
Modulo emac_v2_3_1_por vs emac_v2_3_0_por, this is the same as
emac_v2_3_0_data. Which means that bindings for qcs615-ethqos should be
corrected to use qcom,qcs404-ethqos as as fallback entry, making this
patch unused. Please correct the bindings instead.
Although they currently share the same data, they are actually two different
versions. Their differences are not apparent now but will become evident
once new features are uploaded. If I revert to qcom,qcs404-ethqos now, it
will be challenging to distinguish between them in the future.
Which features? Moreover, note, the use of the fallback doesn't preclude
you from addign a new compat entry later on. By having a fallback you
simply declare that the device A is also compatible with the device B.
Yes, you're right. I confirmed with the hardware team that the EMAC of
qcs615-ride is the same as that of qcs404. I will fall back the
compatible of qcs615 to the latter and drop the unnecessary patches.
+
static const struct ethqos_emac_por emac_v3_0_0_por[] = {
{ .offset = RGMII_IO_MACRO_CONFIG, .value = 0x40c01343 },
{ .offset = SDCC_HC_REG_DLL_CONFIG, .value = 0x2004642c },
@@ -898,6 +914,7 @@ static int qcom_ethqos_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
static const struct of_device_id qcom_ethqos_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "qcom,qcs404-ethqos", .data = &emac_v2_3_0_data},
+ { .compatible = "qcom,qcs615-ethqos", .data = &emac_v2_3_1_data},
{ .compatible = "qcom,sa8775p-ethqos", .data = &emac_v4_0_0_data},
{ .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-ethqos", .data = &emac_v3_0_0_data},
{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8150-ethqos", .data = &emac_v2_1_0_data},
--
2.34.1
--
Best Regards,
Yijie
--
Best Regards,
Yijie
