Hi Bin, On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 1:37 PM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Padmarao, > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 2:11 PM <padmarao.beg...@microchip.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Bin, > > > > > > > > Do we need to upstream Linux kernel bindings for Microchip MACB > compatible if there is no change in Linux MACB driver? > > > > Are the Linux maintainers can approve this? Because the changes only in > U-Boot not Linux. > > > > If Linux driver does not need to be updated to support MPFS macb using > existing compatible string but U-Boot driver has to, something is > wrong on the U-Boot macb driver side. > > Would you please reconsider the whole changes? > > We submitted patches(v1, v2) last year for the U-Boot MACB update for 64-bit DMA access same like Linux MACB driver using "#ifdef CONFIG_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT" but one of the reviewer wanted to check 64-bit DMA support at runtime instead of #ifdef and we updated the macb driver based on the design config debug6 register of MACB hardware which supports 32-bit or 64-bit DMA in patch(v3) but the SiFive FU540 MACB didn't work then the reviewer suggested use compatible string instead of design config register and updated same in patch(v4), these changes were tested and acknowledged them at Patch v6. Below links for patch submitted for "net: macb: Add DMA 64-bit address support for macb" https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg387528.html - Patch v2 https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg389490.html - Patch v3 https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg390611.html - Patch v4 https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg391001.html - Patch v5 https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg391850.html - Patch v6 Regards Padmarao Regards, > Bin >
