[meta-freescale] Should all T4240 errata be applied to T1040?

[zhenhua.luo at freescale.com]

Bob, 

Thanks for your comments. 

FSL SDK developer will fix the issue in QorIQ SDK 1.7(Dec-2014). 


Best Regards,

Zhenhua

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Cochran [mailto:yocto at mindchasers.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 11:36 PM
> To: Luo Zhenhua-B19537; meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org
> Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; Wrobel Heinz-R39252
> Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] Should all T4240 errata be applied to T1040?
> 
> On 09/19/2014 06:04 AM, zhenhua.luo at freescale.com wrote:
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > Thanks for the great finding.
> >
> > Defining the CONFIG_FMAN_T4240 for T1 is inaccurate and potentially
> dangerous for the correct function. The manual explicitly states for TNTSKS that
> exceeding the max supported values is not permitted, but it doesn't actually
> state that the reset value is the maximum permissible value.
> >
> > As for the correct way to define things, we probably need to share
> integrations across common SoCs per, e.g., Table A-5 in the T1040 DPAA RM to
> make SW match our docs properly. A configuration "T4240" is likely a bad one
> anyway if we should name it effectively "FMAN_V3H_384KiB" vs.
> "FMAN_V3H_512KiB" for B4860 rev 2.  So it is good to change "FMAN_V3L" for
> T1 to match the documentation and part behavior.
> >
> > Also the correct way is to stop configuring such things at compile time to
> avoid separate kernel build for every FMan revision.
> 
> 
> Zhenhua,
> 
> I believe a similar issue exists with the dts files.
> 
> fsl/qoriq-fman3-0.dtsi defines two O/H ports that don't exist on the T1040.
> 
> After setting CONFIG_FMAN_V3L,  FM_MAX_NUM_OF_OH_PORTS was
> defined as 4 in T4240/dpaa_integration_ext.h.  This matches what I see in the
> T1040 SoC RM.
> 
> However, during boot, I see errors reported on the command line from the FM
> module:
> 
> Freescale FM module (Sep 26 2014:14:25:29), FMD API version 21.1.0
> cpu1/1: ! MAJOR FM Error [CPU01,
> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/src/wrapper/lnxwrp_fm_port.c:272
> ReadFmPortDevTreeNode]: Invalid Value;
> cpu1/1: of_get_property(/soc at ffe000000/fman at 400000/port at 86000,
> cell-index) failedcpu1/1:
> 
> fsl-fman-port: probe of ffe486000.port failed with error -5
> cpu1/1: ! MAJOR FM Error [CPU01,
> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/src/wrapper/lnxwrp_fm_port.c:272
> ReadFmPortDevTreeNode]: Invalid Value;
> cpu1/1: of_get_property(/soc at ffe000000/fman at 400000/port at 87000,
> cell-index) failedcpu1/1:
> 
> If I remove the extra O/H ports in my dts file, the errors go away.
> 
> So, if we follow your suggestion, I believe we should add a qoriq-fman3l-0.dtsi
> file that excludes the non-existent O/H ports.
> 
> However, I need some feedback because my T1040 DPAA Reference Manual
> Table A-47 states that the number of O/H ports are SoC specific, so maybe
> some V3L devices actually have these extra O/H ports???
> 
> And fsl/t1040si-post.dtsi also specifies the extra two O/H ports, but that's a
> straight forward patch.
> 
> Finally, who will do these patches for proper V3H/V3L support (me or FSL)?  If I
> do it, I'm just going to work through the issues with the
> T1040 / V3L (I can't address B4860 rev 2 - don't have the specs & don't want
> them).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Zhenhua
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: meta-freescale-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-freescale-
> >> bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Bob Cochran
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:44 AM
> >> To: meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org
> >> Subject: [meta-freescale] Should all T4240 errata be applied to T1040?
> >>
> >> I find that during initialization of my T1040rdb-64b using the kernel
> >> built with meta-fsl-ppc master, the FMBM_CFG2.TNTASKS field (total
> >> number of BMI
> >> tasks) is being overwritten to 0x7b (the reset value is documented as
> >> 0x3b in the T1040 reference manual).
> >>
> >> I believe this is being overwritten due to sharing the errata
> >> definitions with the T4240, but this particular erratum may not apply
> >> to the T1040 and may cause undesirable side effects.
> >>
> >> The T4240 uses DPAA FMAN_v3H, and the T1040 uses DPAA FMAN_v3L.
> >>
> >>
> >> Here is my understanding of how this erratum (A005127) is being
> >> applied to the
> >> T1040:
> >>
> >> 1) t1040_64bit_smp_defconfig defines CONFIG_FMAN_T4240
> >>
> >> 2) By defining CONFIG_FMAN_T4240,
> >> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/ncsw_config.mk adds
> >> -I$(FMAN)/inc/integrations/T4240 to EXTRA_CFLAGS.
> >>
> >> 3) dpaa_integration_ext.h is included throughout the fman source
> >> files from
> >> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/inc/integrations/T4240
> >>
> >> 4) This defines FM_WRONG_RESET_VALUES_ERRATA_FMAN_A005127, but
> it is
> >> my understanding that this erratum does not apply to the T1040.
> >>
> >> 5) This results in FMBM_CFG2.TNTASKS being overwritten with a value
> >> approximately twice its default value, and my concern is that the
> >> FMAN_V3L does not have the resources to support this many tasks.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In general, I'm also wondering whether the other errata in the
> >> integration file is appropriate for the T1040 and whether the
> >> FMAN_v3L devices should have their own integration tree.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> meta-freescale mailing list
> >> meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org
> >> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
> >