[U-Boot] [Patch 2/3] Revert "e1000: fix sw fw sync on igb i210/i211"

[Tim Harvey]

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Tim Harvey <tharvey at gateworks.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Marcel Ziswiler <marcel at ziswiler.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 06:15 -0700, Tim Harvey wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> > Tested on Apalis T30 1GB V1.1A with properly fused i211
>>> > Tested on Apalis T30 2GB V1.1A with iNVM fused i210
>>> > Tested on Apalis T30 1GB V1.0A with tools only aka non fused i211
>>> > Tested-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler at toradex.com>
>>> > ---
>>> > BTW: Still fails on Apalis T30 2GB V1.0E with tools only aka non fused
>>> > i210 as follows:
>>> > e1000: e1000#0: ERROR: Hardware Initialization Failed
>>> > In our downstream production U-Boot we temporarily hacked this as
>>> > follows for now:
>>> > http://git.toradex.com/cgit/u-boot-toradex.git/commit/?h=2015.04-toradex&id=2d8ea651b6da79047b6fa729863d25b5eb9e15d7
>>>
>>> I don't understand your results above. What I'm most interested in is
>>> if this patch series (adding the proper semaphore release and removing
>>> your patch that uses the wrong register for i210) resolves the need
>>> for you having added this particular patch for whatever board you
>>> needed it for. Is the configuration that was failing for you requiring
>>> 17da7120249bfdef877f46be5bbcb3cc01212eb9 resolved with this series
>>> applied?
>>
>> Yes, exactly.
>
> ok - thats great news
>
>>
>>> When you say it 'still fails on Apalis T30 2GB V1.0E' does that mean
>>> you have that particular failure both before and after this patch
>>> series? That would indicate to me there is something more needed
>>> specifically for that configuration.
>>
>> Yes, exactly. As once mentioned before Intel actually claims tools only
>> mode anyway not being operational at all on the other hand the Linux
>> driver worked just fine for us with each and every such combination.
>> Unfortunately so far I did not get to tracking this any further.
>
> It does make sense to me that an 'unprogrammed' device would work just
> fine as long as the programmed device-id's were supported by the
> driver (which they are) and the default mode matches your
> configuration. All 'programmed' means on an i210/i211 is that you've
> added some register writes to 'override' power-on defaults. As long as
> the power-on defaults work for your config then your ok. The default
> power-on config for i210/i211 is internal phy copper which is what you
> have.
>
> Tim

Marcel,

Could you give an 'acked-by' if you agree with this series? I would
like to see it merged:

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/473997/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/473998/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/473996/

Regards,

Tim