Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200412034931.9558-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <20200412112756.687ff227@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <ae06b4c6-6818-c053-6f33-55c96f88a4ae@gmail.com> <BN8PR12MB3266A47DE93CEAEBDB4F288AD3DD0@BN8PR12MB3266.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAGb2v65wjtphcN4DEM4mfv+=U5KUmsTujVoPb9L0idwy=ysDZw@mail.gmail.com> <BN8PR12MB32667D9FEB2FBC9657C16183D3DD0@BN8PR12MB3266.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN8PR12MB32667D9FEB2FBC9657C16183D3DD0@BN8PR12MB3266.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 09:49:57 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGb2v64XcLHYFVwy8mnKnUR2qEcJOYLHJF1uDAcqmy484CUoFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: stmmac: Guard against txfifosz=0
To:     Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com>
Cc:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@kernel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mripard@kernel.org" <mripard@kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/STM32 ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
        Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@st.com>,
        "olteanv@gmail.com" <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "moderated list:ARM/STM32 ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 2:59 PM Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
> From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@kernel.org>
> Date: Apr/13/2020, 07:50:47 (UTC+00:00)
>
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 2:42 PM Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Apr/12/2020, 19:31:55 (UTC+00:00)
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4/12/2020 11:27 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 20:49:31 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > > > >> After commit bfcb813203e619a8960a819bf533ad2a108d8105 ("net: dsa:
> > > > >> configure the MTU for switch ports") my Lamobo R1 platform which uses
> > > > >> an allwinner,sun7i-a20-gmac compatible Ethernet MAC started to fail
> > > > >> by rejecting a MTU of 1536. The reason for that is that the DMA
> > > > >> capabilities are not readable on this version of the IP, and there is
> > > > >> also no 'tx-fifo-depth' property being provided in Device Tree. The
> > > > >> property is documented as optional, and is not provided.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The minimum MTU that the network device accepts is ETH_ZLEN - ETH_HLEN,
> > > > >> so rejecting the new MTU based on the txfifosz value unchecked seems a
> > > > >> bit too heavy handed here.
> > > > >
> > > > > OTOH is it safe to assume MTUs up to 16k are valid if device tree lacks
> > > > > the optional property? Is this change purely to preserve backward
> > > > > (bug-ward?) compatibility, even if it's not entirely correct to allow
> > > > > high MTU values? (I think that'd be worth stating in the commit message
> > > > > more explicitly.) Is there no "reasonable default" we could select for
> > > > > txfifosz if property is missing?
> > > >
> > > > Those are good questions, and I do not know how to answer them as I am
> > > > not familiar with the stmmac HW design, but I am hoping Jose can respond
> > > > on this patch. It does sound like providing a default TX FIFO size would
> > > > solve that MTU problem, too, but without a 'tx-fifo-depth' property
> > > > specified in Device Tree, and with the "dma_cap" being empty for this
> > > > chip, I have no idea what to set it to.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, allwinner uses GMAC which does not have any mean to detect
> > > TX FIFO Size. Default value in HW is 2k but this can not be the case in
> > > these platforms if HW team decided to change it.
> >
> > I looked at all the publicly available datasheets and Allwinner uses
> > 4K TX FIFO and 16K RX FIFO in all SoCs. Not sure if this would help.
>
> Yes, thanks for finding this!
>
> So, I think correct fix is then to hard-code these values in dwmac-sunxi.c
> probe function using the already available platform data structure.

I guess we should also set this in the device trees, so that all DT users
can benefit.

ChenYu