Re: [PATCH regression] net: phy: fix initialization (config_init) for Marvel 88E1116R PHYs

[Florian Fainelli]

2014-04-02 15:12 GMT-07:00 Alexander Holler <holler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Am 02.04.2014 22:25, schrieb Sebastian Hesselbarth:
>> On 04/02/2014 09:01 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> 2014-04-02 2:09 GMT-07:00 Alexander Holler <holler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> Am 02.04.2014 02:57, schrieb Florian Fainelli:
>>>>> 2014-04-01 16:55 GMT-07:00 Alexander Holler <holler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>> Commit 7cd1463664c2a15721ff4ccfb61d4d970815cb3d (introduced with 3.14)
>>>>>> changed the initialization of the mv643xx_eth driver to use phy_init_hw()
>>>>>> to reset the PHY. Unfortunately the initialization for the 88E1116R PHY
>>>>>> was broken such, that it used mdelay() instead of really waiting for a
>>>>>> reset to finish.
>>>
>>> Can you resubmit with the following information:
>>>
>>> - you specify the commit that introduce the problem in parenthesis,
>>> e.g: deadbeef ("dead: beef: cafe babe")
>>> - put this dmesg snippet in your log message to clearly illustrate
>>> what is happening
>>> - clarify that the PHY needs to be polled in a comment in
>>> m88e1116r_config_init()
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, it would be good if someone with access to this particular
>>> PHY datasheet could look for known erratas, problems, non-standard
>>> compliant behavior ....
>>
>> Alexander,
>>
>> I tried todays linux/master on Seagate Dockstar with Marvell 88E1116R
>> (0x01410e40) and cannot reproduce any regression. I tried booting from
>> tftp and usb, I also rebooted twice to see if there are any side
>> effects - nothing - ethernet always comes up as expected.
>>
>> I am curious, how you determined above commit to be the cause of the
>> regression you are seeing. Can you bisect, if you didn't already?
>
> There was no bisecting necessary. I've just looked at what changed in
> mv643xx_eth since 3.13 and the first commit I've reverted was already a
> hit. Reading a bit source revealed the differences between the old reset
> and the newly used one and ended up with my patch (first try) and was a
> hit too.
>
> Actually I assumed the reset needs longer than the 500ms, but as the
> printks revealed, the reset is much faster.
> So the problem seems to be the much increased time (1s) the newly used
> reset function idles in mdelay.
>
> But I think I have found the real reason. and the change of the reset
> just increased the chance the problem is hit (here with 100% success or
> fail rate however you want to name it).
>
> Just give me a day or two to find the time to verify my assumption (I
> don't want to speculate) and maybe find a real fix for the problem. Of
> course, I still like my patch because it greatly decreases the time
> necessary for a reset (and the chance to hit the problem).

Why so mysterious, care to share your assumption?
-- 
Florian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/