From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30BF9C433F5 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 21:24:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0E3560F6D for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 21:24:41 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org A0E3560F6D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=quicinc.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4HFp8R5Z64z305Q for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:24:39 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=quicinc.com header.i=@quicinc.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=qcdkim header.b=FrBrqebn; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=quicinc.com (client-ip=129.46.98.28; helo=alexa-out.qualcomm.com; envelope-from=quic_ggregory@quicinc.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=quicinc.com header.i=@quicinc.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=qcdkim header.b=FrBrqebn; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from alexa-out.qualcomm.com (alexa-out.qualcomm.com [129.46.98.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HFp7f11xlz2yfZ for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:23:57 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quicinc.com; i=@quicinc.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1632432238; x=1663968238; h=from:subject:to:references:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ke/CG85/ytmVT4Yjp+qko+KXVn1G/ww8uQXKkHUrlT0=; b=FrBrqebnlPY5JCRcBMWhHgC7nxvb22Tgwoc65Gup25LtnrNs//4OwKQu pS5UanqtVefRAW3sn0+Z7lA4DpepIAGp31dEuoryzfMTLC4kvrcvRVB1t 2kHdq4/Alg3oZafsOCtjLUMweOQWhr8ILYbA14HJvMtib88D0we0LR+22 4=; Received: from ironmsg-lv-alpha.qualcomm.com ([10.47.202.13]) by alexa-out.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 23 Sep 2021 14:22:54 -0700 X-QCInternal: smtphost Received: from nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com ([10.47.209.196]) by ironmsg-lv-alpha.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Sep 2021 14:22:54 -0700 Received: from [10.111.141.25] (10.80.80.8) by nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.209.196) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.922.7; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 14:22:53 -0700 From: Graeme Gregory Subject: Re: AST2600 EVB eth0 (MAC1) Issue To: Troy Lee , OpenBMC Maillist References: <8f36a6e9-eccf-5d9b-2c29-3546ded6ba5d@quicinc.com> Message-ID: <296f8f59-c6a5-5a1a-2567-63c7845e53d3@quicinc.com> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 22:22:50 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8] X-ClientProxiedBy: nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.141.250) To nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.209.196) X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "openbmc" On 23/09/2021 10:09, Troy Lee wrote: > Hi Gaeme, > > Which soc revision and evb board revision are you using? > Can you try to use phy-mode = "rgmii-rxid" for eth0/1 in your dts? > > Thanks, > Troy Lee Hi Troy, Soc Rev:- U-Boot 2019.04-00083-ge5902174d9-dirty (Sep 22 2021 - 15:10:03 +0000) SOC: AST2600-A1 EVB Rev:- AST2600-DDR4 EVB V1.4 phy-mode = "rgmii-rxid" instead of "rgmii" improves the issue and I now get DHCP on that interface, but packet loss is still hight compared to eth1 (MAC2). eth0 ping -f 192.168.222.119 PING 192.168.222.119 (192.168.222.119) 56(84) bytes of data. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................^C --- 192.168.222.119 ping statistics --- 597 packets transmitted, 330 received, 44.7236% packet loss, time 6775ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.078/809.845/3266.263/1099.208 ms, pipe 205, ipg/ewma 11.367/30.024 ms eth1 ping -f 192.168.222.30 [sudo] password for ggregory: PING 192.168.222.30 (192.168.222.30) 56(84) bytes of data. .^C --- 192.168.222.30 ping statistics --- 50591 packets transmitted, 50590 received, 0.00197664% packet loss, time 5550ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.083/0.105/0.816/0.004 ms, ipg/ewma 0.109/0.104 ms Thanks Graeme >> -----Original Message----- >> From: openbmc > bounces+troy_lee=aspeedtech.com@lists.ozlabs.org> On Behalf Of Graeme >> Gregory >> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:49 PM >> To: OpenBMC Maillist >> Subject: AST2600 EVB eth0 (MAC1) Issue >> >> Hi, >> >> I know A0 versions of the AST2600 had an issue where eth0 was not working, >> but the errata indicates this is fixed in later revisions. >> >> I am seeing an issue on the EVB board though where eth0 (MAC1) is not >> functional. The other three ports all function as expected. >> >> On my DHCP host machine I can see DHCP requests from the AST2600, and >> replies are sent. Looking at /proc/interrupts it looks very much like no IRQs >> are ever generated for incoming packets. >> >> Thanks >> >> Graeme >>