On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 06:09:39PM +0000, Stefan Chulski wrote:
> > > > > + } else {
> > > > > + priv->sram_pool = of_gen_pool_get(dn, "cm3-mem", 0);
> > > > > + if (!priv->sram_pool) {
> > > > > + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "DT is too old, TX FC
> > > > disabled\n");
> > > >
> > > > I don't see anything in this patch that disables TX flow control,
> > > > which means this warning message is misleading.
> > >
> > > OK, I would change to TX FC not supported.
> >
> > And you should tell phlylink, so it knows to disable it in autoneg.
> >
> > Which make me wonder, do we need a fix for stable? Has flow control never
> > been support in this device up until these patches get merged?
> > It should not be negotiated if it is not supported, which means telling
> > phylink.
> >
> > Andrew
>
> TX FC never were really supported. MAC or PHY can negotiated flow control.
> But MAC would never trigger FC frame.
That really sucks.
> Should I prepare separate patch that disable TX FC till we merge this patches?
>From what I see in table 28B in 802.3, there is no way to advertise
that you only support RX flow control. If you advertise ASM_DIR=1
PAUSE=0, it basically means you support sending FC frames, but not
receiving them. Advertising anything with PAUSE=1 means you support
both sending and receiving FC frames, irrespective of the state of
ASM_DIR.
So, our only option would be to completely disable pause frames.
Yes, I think we need a separate patch for that for the net tree,
and it should be backported to stable kernels, IMHO.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
