On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:26:23 +0200 Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 08/11/2016 10:52 AM, Alban Bedel wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 14:32:14 +0200 Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 08/09/2016 02:14 PM, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 11:12 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 08/04/2016 11:07 AM, Alban Bedel wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:23:30 +0000 Marcel Ziswiler marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-08-03 at 15:51 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> >> On 08/03/2016 11:46 AM, Alban Bedel wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:00:42 +0200 >>> Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 08/03/2016 07:32 AM, Alban Bedel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Commit 147271209a9d ("net: asix: fix operation without >>>>> eeprom") >>>>> added a special handling for ASIX 88772B that enable >>>>> another >>>>> type of header. This break the driver in DM mode as the >>>>> extra >>>>> handling >>>>> needed in the receive path is missing. >>>> So add the extra handling ? >>> I can do that too, but I though u-boot preferred to avoid >>> useless >>> code. >> Yes, if it is useless. >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> However this new header mode is not required and only >>>>> seems to >>>>> increase the code complexity, so this patch revert this >>>>> part of >>>>> commit 147271209a9d. >>>> Why is it not required ? >>> It works fine without, since 2012. In fact this change is not >>> even >>> mentioned in the log of commit 147271209a9d, so I really >>> don't know >>> why >>> it was added in the first place. As can be seen in the revert >>> all >>> it >>> does is adding 2 bytes to the USB packets that are then just >>> skipped. >>> Seems pretty useless to me. >> I would like to get some feedback on this from Marcel, since he >> added >> this stuff. > Yes, sorry. I just came back from vacation and started looking > into it > now. As far as I remember on our hardware without this Ethernet > did not > quite work reliably. This also means that with driver model so > far it > does not work for us which I fed back to Simon once but so far > this has > not been resolved. That fix came from some early U-Boot work done > by > Antmicro way back and I am missing some of the history. Then I'll do a new patch that just fix the driver model receive path.
Hold on. Marcel, can you maybe test if removing this code has any impact on the behavior now ?
Sorry for the delay. I tested Alban's patch now both on Toradex Colibri T20 as well as T30 and its on-module ASIX USB-to-Ethernet chip actually works perfectly aside from the occasional EHCI timed out on TD - token=0x88008d80 Rx: failed to receive: -5 message which last I checked with Simon is still unresolved but was already there long before any of the driver model work started.
Tested-by: Marcel Ziswiler marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com Tested-on: Colibri T20/T30 on Colibri Evaluation Board
Will this be applied for the upcoming release?
Yeah. Why the hurry though ?
I was just wondering because all the other patches I submitted have been applied but this one still seems to be on hold.
Alban