[U-Boot] [PATCH] imx: iomux-v3: provide MX7D_PAD_ENET1_RX_CLK__ENET1_RGMII_RXC

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2016-11-16 13:10:23 [-0800], Stefan Agner wrote:
> On 2016-11-16 12:02, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > MX7D_PAD_ENET1_RX_CLK__ENET1_RX_CLK is in its currently RGMII_RXC.
> > Fix this by providing RX_CLK with properly setting the DAISY value and
> > MX7D_PAD_ENET1_RX_CLK__ENET1_RGMII_RXC which did the "previous" setting.
> > There should be no fallout because there no in tree users of
> > MX7D_PAD_ENET1_RX_CLK__ENET1_RX_CLK.
> 
> Are you sure this is correct? According to my data sheet Rev 0.1,
> 08/2016, 0x240 is ALT0_ENET1_RGMII_RXC... 0x260 only mentions
> ALT0_ENET1_RX_CLK. I don't think that muxing 0x0260 to 0 and 0x056C
> (daisy chain) to 0 is a sensible configuration.

8.2.7.343 ENET1_RX_CLK_SELECT_INPUT DAISY Register
(IOMUXC_ENET1_RX_CLK_SELECT_INPUT) says:
|0 ENET1_RGMII_RXC_ALT0 - Selecting Pad: ENET1_RGMII_RXC Mode:
|  ALT0 for ENET1_RGMII_RXC
|1 ENET1_RX_CLK_ALT0 - Selecting Pad: ENET1_RX_CLK Mode: ALT0
|  for ENET1_RX_CLK

and I would like the 1 in daisy.

> The daisy chaining seems wrong, though, for both pinmux, but this should
> lead to a fix like this:
> 
> (shortened a bit so that it fits into 80 characters):
> 
> -#de MX7D_PAD_ENET1_RGMII_RXC__ENET1_RGMII_RXC 0x0240 0x04B0 0x0000 0x0
> 0x0
> +#de MX7D_PAD_ENET1_RGMII_RXC__ENET1_RGMII_RXC 0x0240 0x04B0 0x056C 0x0
> 0x0
> 
> 
> -#de MX7D_PAD_ENET1_RX_CLK__ENET1_RX_CLK       0x0260 0x04D0 0x056C 0x0
> 0x0
> +#de MX7D_PAD_ENET1_RX_CLK__ENET1_RX_CLK       0x0260 0x04D0 0x056C 0x0
> 0x1

If you send me a proper patch I could test if it works. The part I sent
is what I use atm on a 100Mbit MII PHY.

Sebastian