Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 18 Oct 2019 18:01:16 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, cphealy@gmail.com,
        Jose Abreu <joabreu@synopsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: phy: Add ability to debug RGMII
 connections
Message-ID: <20191018160116.GD24810@lunn.ch>
References: <20191015224953.24199-3-f.fainelli@gmail.com>
 <4feb3979-1d59-4ad3-b2f1-90d82cfbdf54@gmail.com>
 <c4244c9a-28cb-7e37-684d-64e6cdc89b67@gmail.com>
 <CA+h21hrLHe2n0OxJyCKTU0r7mSB1zK9ggP1-1TCednFN_0rXfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191018130121.GK4780@lunn.ch>
 <CA+h21hoPrwcgz-q=UROAu0PC=6JbKtbdPhJtZg5ge32_2xJ3TQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191018132316.GI25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <CA+h21hqVZ=LF3bQGtqFh4uMu6AhNFcrwQuUcEH-Fc1VrWku-eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191018135411.GJ25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <CA+h21hrqRtxWp1c-8F-9qPPsYxA_w_B_131DRayLBd8xjpOzPg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+h21hrqRtxWp1c-8F-9qPPsYxA_w_B_131DRayLBd8xjpOzPg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> I don't think you are following the big picture of what I am saying. I
> was trying to follow Florian's intention (first make sure I understand
> it) and suggest that the FCS checking code in the patch he submitted
> is not doing what it was intended to. I am getting apparent FCS
> mismatches reported by the program, when I know full well that the MAC
> I am testing on would have dropped those frames were they really
> invalid.

I think this FCS check is not needed. If we feed the MAC random data,
something like 1 in 65535 will have a valid FCS and get passed up.
I've not seen this happen with Ethernet, but i have seen other network
technologies wrong decoding noise on the line and passing up frames
with around 1 in 65536 probability.

But then having the correct Ethertype is another 1 in 65536. So it
seem pretty improbably we do receiver a packet in this method which is
bad. So i would say, any packet received here is a good packet, and
indicate the RGMII mode works. If we don't receive a packet, the mode
is very probably bad.

	 Andrew