From owner-freebsd-mips@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 1 20:40:02 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-mips@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31774D8B for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 20:40:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D08F6E for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 20:40:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r31Ke1vg078775 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 20:40:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r31Ke15i078774; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 20:40:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 20:40:01 GMT Message-Id: <201304012040.r31Ke15i078774@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-mips@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Luiz Otavio O Souza Subject: Re: kern/177032: [arge] arge1 fails to attach on UBNT Routerstation X-BeenThere: freebsd-mips@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Luiz Otavio O Souza List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to MIPS List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 20:40:02 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/177032; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Luiz Otavio O Souza To: Petko Bordjukov Cc: freebsd-mips@freebsd.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/177032: [arge] arge1 fails to attach on UBNT Routerstation Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:32:59 -0300 --047d7bfd0bd6db028f04d9528645 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 1 April 2013 14:00, Petko Bordjukov wrote: > The following reply was made to PR kern/177032; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: Petko Bordjukov > To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org > Cc: > Subject: Re: kern/177032: [arge] arge1 fails to attach on UBNT > Routerstation > Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:50:09 +0300 > > Hello Luiz, > > Thank you for your response. > > Using a 0x0 PHY mask does indeed eliminate the error and the interface > is present and operational. However, what are the implications of not > using a directly mapped PHY? > > Also, to my knowledge the phymask should be 15 << 16 and the miimode > should be RMII, however I was not able to get the interface running with > these values. > > -- > Best regards, > Petko > > There are no implications for this change on ROUTERSTATION as the switch (ADM9669) cannot be managed from its MDIO interface and all you have is a static two port switch on arge1. Even with the correct phymask, you cannot attach and use two simultaneous PHY on a single ethernet interface so i think that the phymask=0 is correct for this board. And no, the phymask on the ROUTERSTATION.hints is correct (0x3 << 16 == PHY 16 and 17) as there are only two ports connected on the switch (all the others PHYs on the switch are disconnected). I'm not sure about the correct miimode for ROUTERSTATION, but i think you're right, it should be RMII. I don't have physical access to this board anymore to test it myself (although a friend of mine has one of these). Regards, Luiz --047d7bfd0bd6db028f04d9528645 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 1 April 2013 14:00, Petko Bo= rdjukov <bordjukov@gmail.com> wrote:
The following reply was made to PR kern/177032; it has been noted by GNATS.=

From: Petko Bordjukov <bord= jukov@gmail.com>
To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/177032: [arge] arge1 fails to attach on UBNT Routerstatio= n
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:50:09 +0300

=A0Hello Luiz,

=A0Thank you for your response.

=A0Using a 0x0 PHY mask does indeed eliminate the error and the interface =A0is present and operational. However, what are the implications of not =A0using a directly mapped PHY?

=A0Also, to my knowledge the phymask should be 15 << 16 and the miimo= de
=A0should be RMII, however I was not able to get the interface running with=
=A0these values.

=A0--
=A0Best regards,
=A0Petko



There are no implications for this change on ROUTERS= TATION as the switch (ADM9669) cannot be managed from its MDIO interface an= d all you have is a static two port switch on arge1.

Even with the correct phymask, you cannot attach and us= e two simultaneous PHY on a single ethernet interface so i think that the p= hymask=3D0 is correct for this board.

And no, the = phymask on the ROUTERSTATION.hints is correct (0x3 << 16 =3D=3D PHY 1= 6 and 17) as there are only two ports connected on the switch (all the othe= rs PHYs on the switch are disconnected).

I'm not sure about the correct miimode for ROUTERST= ATION, but i think you're right, it should be RMII. I don't have ph= ysical access to this board anymore to test it myself (although a friend of= mine has one of these).

Regards,
Luiz

--047d7bfd0bd6db028f04d9528645--