[PATCH v1 4/5] net: macb: Compatible as per device tree

Padmarao Begari padmarao.b at gmail.com
Thu Nov 11 10:06:57 CET 2021

Hi Bin,

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 1:37 PM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Padmarao,
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 2:11 PM <Padmarao.Begari at 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


> Bin

More information about the U-Boot mailing list